« Obama Fundraiser Bernard Named White House Liaison to the NEH |
Main
| PAPER: FBI Targeted Former MPAA Pres Valenti in Gay Witch Hunt »
02/19/2009
Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper Banned from Entering UK
Westboro Baptist Church leaders Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper had planned a trip to the UK to picket a production of The Laramie Project set to take place on Friday in Basingstoke, Hampshire. But they aren't being allowed into the country:
The church has other upcoming hateful pickets to attend to however. They plan to picket a memorial service for the pilot of Continental Flight 3407 in Buffalo, New York, as well as the Academy Awards.
Posted 8:49 AM EST by Andy Towle in Crime, Fred Phelps, Great Britain, Matthew Shepard, News, Shirley Phelps-Roper | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
How would these freaks afford the airfare and hotel? I mean aren;t they suppossed to be BROKE? They claim they can't pay ;awsuit that was brought against them.
This was probably a Westboro publicity stunt. They never TRULY intended on going and now they can rant against the UK.
God I hate those people
Posted by: Jeff | Feb 19, 2009 8:53:37 AM
If only we could ban the Phelps from American soil!
Posted by: RB | Feb 19, 2009 9:08:27 AM
HOORAY for the UK.
Posted by: SONNIE | Feb 19, 2009 9:15:46 AM
Now if US Dept of Homeland Security would recognize them as a security risk -- that would be progress...
Seriously though, why can't our own government have them identified as a domestic terrorist group?
Posted by: todd_k_az | Feb 19, 2009 9:18:38 AM
...and good riddance too, the bloody riff-raff.
Posted by: Nonplussed | Feb 19, 2009 9:18:47 AM
Wilders should definitely not have been excluded from the UK, and on balance I do not think that the Phelps should have either.
Wilders is a Parliamentarian from another EU state, and excluding him prevented people in the UK from engaging in a proper debate with him. In a shocking display of arrogance, Keith Vaz on Newsnight told a Muslim campaigner, "if you want to debate Fitna with Wilders, go to Holland".
The Phelps - who while not elected representatives from another EU state - should similarly been allowed entry. Then, we could have met their demonstration with counter-demonstration, and hopefully drowned them out with such vigour that they would leave with their eardrums bleeding.
Posted by: Graham Anderson | Feb 19, 2009 9:38:28 AM
"...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."
What an exceptionally well crafted response! Perhaps in 7 or 800 years the US will have something like it on the books.
It's interesting; watching Rachel Maddow last evening, she was interviewing a California State senator. Seems that all the problems in that state are fueled by Right Wing extremist talk radio hosts firing up the radicals to hold the state legislature hostage for votes along extremist lines.
It's a shame the US can't impose similar laws like the UK.
Oh, wait, we did, but the GOP under Regan rescinded them.
Posted by: Rad | Feb 19, 2009 9:45:23 AM
Graham - what I know of the Wilders incident makes me agree with you. The Phelps family, however, may be a different story. My personal views on limitations of free speech pretty well begin and end with death threats and incitement of hatred. If they were just saying "gays are dirty" or "fags are immoral" I could support their entry, but they actively encourage and fetishise the death of all gay people. Even if you reckon a Brit should have the right to that expression in the UK, I don't think that freedom automatically extends to a group (whose only purpose is to spew hate speech) from another jurisdiction that are visiting the country with the express intention to encourage harm towards gay UK residents.
Posted by: altona | Feb 19, 2009 9:49:47 AM
We need to become aware of the source of the Phelps Klan's wealth...and then demand disinvestment and/or boycott.
Where do these freaks get all their money?
Posted by: Qjersey | Feb 19, 2009 10:16:33 AM
You see, there is a god and he hates Fred Phelps.
I hope the plane flies over the Bermuda Triangle and they end up on an island of lesbian amazons.
Posted by: Bobby | Feb 19, 2009 10:39:46 AM
That should properly read: "The ban comes after Dutch MP Geert Wilders was barred from the UK last week for his views on extremist Islam."
Posted by: Eshto | Feb 19, 2009 10:49:34 AM
Hurray !
I really thought they would be allowed over here, or that the authorities involved wouldn't even know who the pair are.
Re: Wilders -
Though personally I thought it was too far to ban an elected EU official, I do try to keep in mind that there are a whole lot of EU countries now and most tend to elect 100s of politicians... when you have that many 1000s around some lunatic-fringe types are bound to creep in.
Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to preferential treatment e.g. we wouldn't want our BNP leaders receiving state welcomes, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a Parliamentary firestorm if other nations started banning them from their borders.
Towleroad is pretty much packed to the rafters with examples of people who shouldn't be afforded respect simply for getting elected / ordained / whatevered...
Posted by: PM | Feb 19, 2009 10:56:25 AM
Good idea, Rad. The government should definitely start regulating speech and silencing and locking up those who disagree with whichever administration is in power at a given time.
At the same time that the UK attempts to limit "hate" speech of Europeans like Wilders, it is allowing Islamic militant immigrants to openly spread their hate speech throughout Britain. This is the hypocrisy and unhealthy double standard you deal with when you attempt to selectively control the speech and thoughts of others....though I know many of the neo-fascists on this website are all for that sort of thing.
Posted by: paul c | Feb 19, 2009 10:59:21 AM
Why does the U.S. not hold extremist groups such as the Phelps KKKlan to the same standard as the U.K.? I highly doubt it has any relation to free speech as the U.S. already sensors other groups, of course that censorship is veiled under law to fight "terror". Acts against minorities in the U.S., well, they are protected under free speech. Riiiiight. Bus, meet minority; minority, meet bus.
Posted by: Cj | Feb 19, 2009 11:05:48 AM
Oh, and could an expert in law educate me on the exact rights under the first amendment? As I have read, I believe freedom of speech is limited to speech that doesn't incite direct violence against any particular member or community in the U.S. Speech that inevitably incites violence against any member may be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, meaning you may certainly say what you wish under the first amendment, however if the intent is physical harm against another individual and causes such harm, the instigating party may be held accountable. Speak what you wish, yet be ready to defend your freedom of speech.
Posted by: Cj | Feb 19, 2009 11:13:11 AM
JEFF--you are spot-on--I was going to post almost the exact same comment. They allege that they can't afford to pay the penalty for the settlement against them for protesting at a deceased veteran's funeral, but they keep saying they're going to travel abroad to protest (insert event here). They had no intention of going--it's just their delusional way of trying to stay relevant (not that they ever were, except in their own little minds). I hate them, too, JEFF--you're good people, as far as I'm concerned!
Posted by: troschne | Feb 19, 2009 11:28:35 AM
CJ, the First Amendment is usually misquoted and misused to mean that every citizen has the right to say what he pleases without being restricted by, or having a negative response from, other citizens. That is simply not what the First Amendment does. The First Amendment protects citizens' speech from being limited or controlled by the GOVERNMENT. An employer can restrict free speech; a parent can restrict free speech; another citizen can challenge a citizen's speech; a person can have negative repercussions from what they say through actions such as boycotts (another form of free speech). Speech, like everything else, is NEVER free. There is always a price to pay for what you say. People have to decide for themselves if the price is worth the speech.
I could be wrong but I don't believe England, or any other country in Europe, has a LEGAL right to free speech written into their constitutions or legislation. Even if they do it is more than likely less broad than America’s First Amendment. This is why speech is more easily restricted by the government in European countries.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 19, 2009 11:30:06 AM
The Phelps' source of income can be found in the fact that every single one of them, including Fred Phelps (who was a respected and acclaimed CIVIL RIGHTS attorney before going off the gay hate rails) is an attorney.
Has anyone ever met a poor attorney?
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 19, 2009 11:51:26 AM
CJ: Ever hear of Wikipedia?? Good place to start. Speech in the US comes in different "levels" based on their strict adherence to the first amendment. Speech can cross-over into "acts", which receive no first amendment protection based on various well-worn tests.
What you are referring to falls under "making terroristic threats". This is the direct incitement for an audience to commit a crime, or the publicly expressed intention to commit a crime, or cause tortuous offense, as applicable under various federal and state laws. Specifically, violent crimes. Civil law also allows for the redress of slander and defamation.
Such incitements, however, must be specific and unambiguous. For example, saying that person X will "regret" their decision to not leave town by noon is not unambiguous. Meanwhile, saying that "someone" will have to die or pay-the-price for act X is not specific. The Phelpses know this perfectly well, and never call for the death of an individual, just the unspecific group of "fags". They are unambiguous, but also unspecific.
In Britain, they are trying to extend individual protection to groups, but this is a tough precedent because if you bar unspecific incitements, why can't you also bar ambiguous incitements? This is what happened to Wilders, whose incitements were both ambiguous and unspecific. When you go down this road there are too many statements to regulate and too many potential tests to apply. It becomes a mess. In practice, they will bar only those individual who "embarrass" the administration and let other in who could be equally bad or worse. Why? Because if they have the authority to ban people, then it becomes their responsibility too, making all such entries into the country a reflection of the administration. In other words, they have no way of "washing their hands of the situation".
(As a practical matter, incitements must also be practical to fall under any ban. Calling for the death of Hitler these days will not exactly raise alarms, as neither would saying now in 2009 that Nixon should be shot--or even should have been shot--for Watergate. Likewise, legalistic threats, such as threatening to sue or calling for the arrest and conviction of someone--is not the same as a terroristic threat. However, accusing someone of a crime is grounds for slander/libel).
Posted by: anon | Feb 19, 2009 11:53:00 AM
Another reason to love the Brits. Well done!
Posted by: Jack M | Feb 19, 2009 1:30:38 PM
ZEKE said "I could be wrong but I don't believe England, or any other country in Europe, has a LEGAL right to free speech written into their constitutions or legislation. Even if they do it is more than likely less broad than America’s First Amendment. This is why speech is more easily restricted by the government in European countries."
You are indeed mistaken and actively feeding into the tired (and somewhat offensive) American notion that European governments are actively limiting free speech and have greater ability than the US government to do so. A number of countries have laws that are arguably more protective of free speech than in the US, while others are stricter in some ways; much of that depends on interpretation.
The FCC, for example, has draconian powers compared to even the most conservative EU countries' equivalent bodies. One could also argue that the electoral college system is a major obstacle to free speech as it artificially weights votes depending on where you live. There are plenty of examples on both sides, so suffice it to say that the idea that the US is the world's last bastion of free speech is hardly unassailable.
Posted by: altona | Feb 19, 2009 2:26:49 PM
ALTONA, that was not at all what I was saying. You are ascribing to me what you mistakenly think "all Americans" believe. In actuality you couldn't be more wrong about how I feel about whether or not America is the world's last bastion of ANYTHING. I actually prefer the way that some European countries address freedom of speech issues and how they are more likely to limit hate speech than we in America are.
After doing research I have discovered that England has, as of 1998, yes 1998, legislated the protection of free speech by adopting Article 10 of the European Convention into its Human Rights Act. So I based my comment on what I knew to be fact just a very few years ago. I am in my forties so, for the vast majority of my life and until recently, my statement was accurate. Pardon me for not doing the research to find that they have since passed laws protecting free speech.
Even still England's free speech laws DO have more specifically stated exceptions to free speech than the First Amendment. For example they have a prohibition against incitement to religious/racial hatred, which would mean that my earlier statement, "Even if they do it is more than likely less broad than America’s First Amendment" was in fact accurate. I personally think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Additionally, England has some of the strictest anti-defamation/anti-slander laws in the western world. This has the de facto effect of limiting free speech more than in the USA because people know that they will have the shit sued out of them if they make inaccurate statements about someone. In America the laws make it almost impossible to win a slander or defamation suit even when a person has clearly been slandered or defamed.
That, I think, is one area of many, where England's laws are better than ours. Don't assume that when I say America has greater free speech that I necessarily think it's always a good thing. In general I think the answer to hate speech is more speech but I think speech that even remotely incites violence should be illegal. In America law enforcement officers can’t keep music acts like Buju Banton from performing their songs that outright promote the most extreme violence against gay men. In England they can and do. I think England has it right on this, so clearly I favor the English free speech laws and enforcement to ours.
In the future, please refrain from making assumptions about me and please refrain from ascribing your stereotypes about Americans to my words.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 19, 2009 4:24:22 PM
1. I'm American, though I've also lived a long while in Europe.
2. You were talking about European countries in general, not just the UK, so your response focusing solely on Britain is odd.
3. I never said that "all Americans" have that attitude - I didn't even say most Americans - I just said it was an American notion. In my experience only the US has such a strong sense of self-righteous, god-given purpose, with this singular idea of what freedom and free speech is. I didn't say you believed it yourself, I just said you were feeding into it by putting it out there without backing it up. It's like saying "Americans seem to be stupid" without even giving examples or reasons why it could be true.
4. Slander and libel are civil matters, so the idea that the government is somehow regulating free speech through the courts is not a fair assessment. Those laws simply give people recourse if they feel wronged. The judges act more like intermediaries. That said, the laws are indeed very stringent by American standards.
I'm sorry that my comment earlier was somewhat terse, but when I hear Americans complain about anti-American sentiment in Europe it is hard not to roll my eyes. In my experience Europeans are frighteningly more engaged with the outside world and despite their many faults they actively try to understand the US. When you wrote that "speech is more easily restricted by the government in European countries" you sounded just like the multitude of Americans who seem to think Europe is brimming with socialist totalitarianism and that Europeans are drones for the antichrist that is the EU. I've got relatives who think that the pope will eventually be EU president and will cause the rapture, end of days, etc. This nonsense only has traction in the US. I'm not suggesting you're anti-EU at all, but you can see how I might be sensitive to people offering up poorly-informed opinions that most likely will be taken by others to be fact.
Again, apologies for a snarky tone.
Posted by: altona | Feb 19, 2009 5:10:05 PM
I wish America could ban these FREAKS!!
Posted by: KFLO | Feb 19, 2009 6:07:29 PM
1. a) Just because a person is American it doesn't mean he's incabable of making negative American stereotypes anymore than gay people are incapable of making negative gay stereotypes. b) I too lived in Europe (England and Germany) for a number of years.
2. I specifically named England in my first comment. That's why I focused on England. In doing more research I discovered that my comment would have been 100% correct just a very few years ago. I mistakenly said that I didn't think England or other European countries had laws that protect free speech rights. I corrected myself about England in my last comment noting that England very recently passed such laws and even more recently, almost 2001, they went into effect. The European Union adopted free speech rights relatively recently as well and pushed individual countries like England to adopt them. Again this is a recent developement so it is entirely appropriate to point out that Europe has not had the LEGAL protection of "freedom of speech" the way the United States has since the late 18th century. That is a statement, not a judgement. It is also appropriate to point out that most European countries have more exceptions to their laws than we do. Again, I prefer THEIR laws to ours because I think anti-defamation laws and laws against incitement to violence should be stronger here.
3. You may not have said "all Americans" but you certainly made assumptions about me and my comment based on your sensitivity to the fact that there are many ignorant American xenophobes. I undertand your sensitivity, I share it, but I think it is inappropriate for you to make assumptions about me based on your negative experiences with other Americans. I may be from Mississippi but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
4. Of course Libel/Slander/Defamation ENFORCEMENT is a civil matter but in England, unlike America where these laws are determined at the state level, in England they are national laws passed by Parliament and therefore the national government through the stringency of their laws do impose a de facto limitation of free speech by establishing a low threshold to meet to win a slander suit. This most definitely limits speech by making people more responsible for what they say. AGAIN, I think this is a GOOD thing and I think England has it right on this.
I accept your apology for the snarky tone. I'm certainly not above being snarky myself. I've actually enjoyed reading your comments here at Towleroad. We actually have very similar views on most of the issues that you've commented on.
Posted by: Zeke | Feb 19, 2009 10:32:12 PM