I apologize. You were saying that the UK is less racist and homophobic now than at any time in its recorded history. And it is more racist and homophobic than ever.

It was a list of 16 people.

Most of whom are vile mass murderers.

If they wanted to get Savage in the headlines, how to better do it? The Brits have nothing to gain, unless you think that they are so incompetent that they just didn't anticipate this backfiring. That's what his enemies in America always wanted.

I don't see how that can be the case. In Victorian Britian homosexuality was a jailable offence, up into the 60s it was illegal and homosexuals were forced to take drugs and councilling to 'cure' them, in the 70s and 80s it was still generally regarded as a shameful thing to do.

In the last 20 years or so homosexuality has become widely destigmatised. Homosexual marriage is now legal in the UK (though it tends to be euphemistically referred to as "union" for fear of upsetting the religious). Hate crime against homosexuals still exists and we do have certain media pundits who say the same sort of stuff Savage says - but these are increasingly marginal opinions and acts.

Not that it matters much, but it is a list of 22 people, of whom I believe 16 have been named.

Wrong. There is a single murderer on the list as far as I know - Samir al Quntar, a Lebanese man who spent three decades in prison for killing four Israeli soldiers and a 4-year-old girl in 1979. Most people on the list have been convicted of no crime beyond reports of various degrees of incitement of hatred and/or incitement to acts of terrorism.

To make it clear - I think the list as a whole is wrong-headed. Savage just stands out as being the least offensive of the people on the list. I don't think he really is inciteful - he's just a boorish and obnoxious shock-jock.

Either way it's incompetence isn't it? I'm not suggesting the ban was done to promote Savage (though promotion has been the result), just that enough evidence of the fact that bans only increase a person's visibility in UK culture now exists for the purpose of the ban to logically be one of suppressing his voice.

However, being a Brit and knowing what sort of pressure the Labour party in general, and Smith in particular, are under at the moment I suspect the particular banning of Savage was an inept appeal to those who might have otherwise commented on the fact that, Phelps family and a KKK Grand Wizard aside, everyone on the list was decidedly "other" - nutjobs ranting away in foreign languages.

That is great, but the muslims preaching violence are not in any way restricted because of diversity or whatever, including against gays . In a few years it'll be as "tolerant" as Amsterdam where muslim mobs hunt down gays.

And Michael Savage did not incite any anti-gay sentiment in Britain.

Barely anybody knows him there. Keep in mind that the out of context clips you hear are the worst that anyone could come up with from him talking three hours a day for 15 years. He's not even "anti gay". Search his podcast dicectory for the word 'gay', he only talked about it like 9 times since 8/28/08.

I think there were a bunch of murderers, but it's not really important.

Neither the Brits, Savage or Savage's enemies i the US care if he gets a few more ratings. I believe the intention of this list was to get Savage in the headlines as the bad-guy, which will give his adversaries in the US an edge in their cause to get him off the air.

Please elaborate, what pressure? I'm not very into British domestic politics.

Well I don't know anything about mobs of gay-bashing muslims in Amsterdam. Not to wish to cast aspersions on your sources Nero, but based on the fact that you do seem to be taking the odd isolated news story or rumour and building a worldview out of it could I ask what your sources are?

Based on the cases of people like Salman Rushdie I would say the general muslim populace of the UK is also more tolerant than it was 20 years ago. A wahabbist movement committing violence as a response to political problems in the middle east. My own Muslim friends and aquaintances, of which I have a few, are more homophobic in general than non-muslim friends - but I've never heard them wish death on a homosexual - just that they find the practice revolting and ungodly. The thin end of the wedge perhaps, but I'd be willing to bet that mobs of muslim gay-bashers are not likely to become a feature of British life.

Samir al Quntar didn't kill anyone in Britain. Where the banned individuals performed the acts that banned them is irrelevent.

I don't really give a monkey's what he thinks about homosexuals. I actually do think his "get AIDS and die" remark was an attempt at black humour (not a very funny one, but it doesn't really offend me, home grown black humourists like Chris Morris and Jerry Sadowitz are far edgier).

Well the point for me is that this is a philosophy forum, which is meant to be about the discussion of the nature of knowledge and truth - so if it looks like a participant is just pulling facts out of the air to support their side of the debate I think it's fair to point out that available evidence is to the contrary. If you know that other people on the list are dangerous criminals by all means cite your source. Based on every news story I have read or heard on the matter, including links earlier in this thread, suggest that the list is by and large made up of people who are guilty of nothing more than various degrees of incitement. Samir al Quntar is the exception rather than the rule.

Well, that may turn out to be true, but I think it's too vividly conspiratorial to be true. Secreties of State often draw up lists like this. Most of the other people on the list were unknowns as well.

As an aside, what do you make of banning the Phelpses or the Grand Wizard of the KKK?

As a result I think Savage might have been targetted because Smith thought scapegoating a loud advocate of what British people percieve as the ugly side of the US might win some sympathy from the public - but it has pretty much backfired.

Now I can't be sure of any of this - and I agree that it is also somewhat conspiratorial, but there needn't be any US involvement in this at all.

Anti-Gay Violence Is a Problem in Amsterdam - ABC News
I think the story gets around mentioning muslims, but you can do a quick google search.

Let's hope so.
Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK - Telegraph.

In defense of your muslim friends, are they really "homophobic" or just against gay marriage/think homosexuality is immoral.

Savage didn't incite any anti-gay sentiment anywhere else either. He was outspoken against gay marriage.
Barack Obama is against gay marriage as well.

Then the question remains why he, compared to the others a moderate, was banned.

You are right. I hoped I could get around the effort of searching for it, but here it is.
The Home Office list of people banned from the UK | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Seems you are pretty much right, most of those people never directly killed anyone. But Hitler and Charlie Manson never killed anyone themselves. It seems that these people are actively sporting violence. how is Dr. Savage anywhere near that. What did he say that was so bad?

And you might have a point that they put Savage - a conservative - on that list so British the muslims wouldn't protest over that list mostly containing muslim preachers.

Theory is the highest status a explanation can achieve outside of math. So the term conspiracy theory does not mean that an explanation must be false.

It doesn't. Neither does it say that such violence is on the increase. The story says that Amsterdam is seen as a safe place for homosexuals, but there is a fair degree of violence aimed at them - but no more than there was historically. The story seems to me to be about city authorities expressing disappointment that the situation's no better than it is.

That a large minority of muslims want muslim holy law is hardly shocking is it? It's like Rusty in the YouTube clip you posted earlier claiming that a Muslim saying he believes that one day Islam will conquer the world is tantamount to hate speech. Perhaps one can extrapolate such from the message - but let's face it - most monotheists either overtly or covertly believe that their faith will prove to be the right one, and that people of other faiths will suffer 'in this life or the next' (even if the suffering is just the shame of knowing you were on the wrong 'side' - or the worst possible threat which is that of ceaseless eternal torture). Jewish and Christian visions of the end times are similarly violent images of world wide war and conquest. So what?

This isn't a point about muslims being nuts - religious people as a whole, and monotheists in particular, tend to go in for this kind of Revelation.

I don't see the difference. If I took a dislike to someone based on thinking they were immoral it could only be based on fear of their behaviour or the influence of their example. It is a phobia.

That's a shame - we're either equal or we aren't after all.

It seems to me that Christians in the US think they OWN marriage - which is a crock. Every time I see some commentator on the subject justify the ban they turn to the bible.

Clearly those who care about equality in the US should desert the churches. This will hit them where it hurts - their pockets - and all but the most fundamental will soon come round (as some already are).

I don't know and don't really care. As I say I oppose the banning of people based on what they say alone.

In the case of Hitler and Manson these people did erect an infrastructure about them using varying degrees of extortion, intimidation, brainwashing and political or philosophical manipulation - and then ordered those within the infrastructure to commit violence. Obviously they did this in various different ways and with different degrees of success (if success is the right word to use in relation to those who wish to start race wars).

Now some of the people on the list were trying to build such infrastructure - and a radio show or audience at a mosque might be judged such - but I would personally not advocate bans based on a mere hunch on such matters.

I suspect it is the left wing media - who normally support the Labour Party - who they were trying to placate.

With relevence to Science theory is highest status a hypothesis or body of hypotheses can achieve, and therefore as close to mathmatical proof that scientific ideas can come in terms of certainty.

However, the colloquial use of the word theory usually just means a hypothesis or guess. This is why a theory that the moon is made of cheese is nowhere near the theory of electromagnetism in terms of scientific credibility (though moons made of cheese are arguably more important than electromagnetism as far as folklore and children's fiction is concerned). It's also why Creationists prove they have no understanding of science when they claim that evolution is "only a theory" and is therefore as credible as the theory of intelligent design.

Conspiracy theories are usually hypotheses or guesses with only anecdotal evidence or coincidental evidence, or lack thereof, to back them up - and they usually come about to suit a political agenda.

For example: The theory that Jewish workers at the world trade centre took a mass duvet day on 9/11.

Hard evidence of the Nixon Administration bugging the Democrat HQ was found - which made theories about that particular conspiracy credible.

Well, if intolerance doesn't go down in the capital of tolerance, there might be a problem with the shiny prospect of the tolerance police.

I don't think that is accurate.

Sure, many religious people are nuts, but Jews and Christians have reformed. How many Jews or Christians have bombed something lately?

That's pretty frightening. One can regard homosexuality as immoral or reject gay marriage without disliking gays. If you believe that all opposition to gayness is due to bigotry and hate, you are where the activist groups want you to be.

All Americans equally prohibited from marrying the other gender. So that is how discriminating on sexual preference?

We're not. I don't think you're saying that we all should be equal under the law. Should I be treated the same under the law as someone who is blind? Then I want the same benefits please.

They are coming around because they are screamed at, their property is vandalized for donating to 'yes on prop 8' (a vote on gay marriage in california). Methods of voter intimidation that should be prohibited in a free republic. Yet politicians are afraid to speak up against the activists, for they would be brought down by homophobia accusations.

I don't really care about gay marriage but I fear for the republic if pressure groups can get their way with those tactics.

Maybe your media didn't report that part but Savage has good chances in a lawsuit claiming deformation of his character. (I do think he sues to get attention and ratings.).

Shall we call them 'covered plan explanations' instead? I guess usually a conspiracy theory has little evidence. Then evidence, making an explanation likely, means it's not a conspiracy theory any more.

The point being that the title 'capital of tolerance' wasn't warranted in this respect. Areas fo Britain are more tolerant in terms of assaults on homosexuals than Amsterdam is, or ever was by the look of the article.

Labelling a particular group as more violent than another is never likely to be able to be backed up by unbiased evidence - and even if it were, the historical story of that group is always more complicated than what religion they happen to follow.

2009.05.06 Pakistan Dera Ismail Khan 0 14 A Muslim militant throws a grenade into a rival mosque during prayer time, injuring fourteen.
2009.05.06 Pakistan Buner 4 0 A woman is among four civilians murdered by fundamentalists in two incidents.
2009.05.06 Iraq Baghdad 15 46 Jihadis successfully kill fifteen patrons of an outdoor marketplace with a well-placed bomb.
2009.05.06 Iraq Mosul 1 2 An 11-year-old boy is taken out by Mujahideen bombers.
2009.05.06 Pakistan Nazar Muhalla 1 0 A woman is shot to death in an honor killing when 'illicit' relations are suspected.
2009.05.05 Pakistan Peshawar 7 48 Two children are among seven people blown apart by a Holy Warrior car bomber.
2009.05.05 Pakistan Mohmand 2 6 Sunni militants attack a checkpost, killing at least two defending officers.
2009.05.05 Iraq Kirkuk 1 0 A man is kidnapped and tortured to death by suspected al-Qaeda.
2009.05.04 Pakistan Peshawar 5 12 Five local cops are murdered in two attacks, including a Fedayeen bombing.
2009.05.04 Iraq Baghdad 4 6 Muslim bombers take out four Iraqis.
2009.05.04 Philippines Tulunan 3 6 Moro Islamists attack a banana plantation, killing three civilians.
2009.05.04 Afghanistan Zabul 7 10 A mayor is among seven people blown to bits by a 14-year-old suicide bomber.
2009.05.04 Afghanistan Zabul 12 0 Women and children are represented among the twelve victims of Sunni fundamentalist bombers.
2009.05.04 Thailand Yala 1 0 Muslim insurgents shoot a 70-year-old man to death inside his home.
2009.05.04 Afghanistan Zabul 8 0 The Taliban murder eight people working a construction crew in a brutal ambush.
2009.05.03 Pakistan North Waziristan 2 0 The bodies of two Taliban kidnap victims are found riddled with bullets.
2009.05.03 Afghanistan Helmand 4 7 An 8-year-old girl and 10-year-old boy are among four murdered in a Taliban bomb blast.
2009.05.03 Pakistan Swat 2 0 Two security officers are kidnapped and beheaded by Islamists.
2009.05.03 Iraq Mosul 3 4 Terrorists take out three Iraqis with a car bomb.
2009.05.03 Somalia Mogadishu 11 15 Eleven African peacekeepers are murdered in a Mujahid suicide attack.
2009.05.03 Thailand Narathiwat 2 1 A construction worker is among two people killed in separate Muslim attacks.
2009.05.03 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 Islamic fundamentalists shoot a 59-year-old pork vendor to death and injure an accompanying minor.
2009.05.03 Israel Ramat Gan 0 1 An Israeli soldier riding a bus is stabbed in the neck by an Arab attacker.
2009.05.02 India Baramulla 1 2 A 10-year-old boy is killed by a Jihadi bomb.
2009.05.02 Iraq Kirkuk 3 0 Three civilians are taken down in a Mujahideen roadside blast.
2009.05.02 Pakistan Bajaur 1 5 Sunni militants kill a man and injure five women in a rocket attack on their homes.
2009.05.02 Iraq Mosul 2 3 Two US soldiers are shot to death by a local imam wearing a Coalition uniform.
2009.05.02 Pakistan Mingora 2 0 Two government officials are kidnapped and beheaded by religious extremists.
2009.05.01 Afghanistan Kunar 10 8 Ten security force personnel are killed when Islamic militants attack a base.
2009.05.01 Iraq Mosul 5 6 A Shiite family of five is blown to bits by a Fedayeen suicide bomber in a cafe.
2009.05.01 Pakistan Miranshah 1 0 A civilian is murdered by Sunni extremists on suspicion of spying.

I never said anything about hate - I specifically and solely blame it on fear. Fear is the guiding motivation, whether or not actual hatred results. I don't think hate is necessary for bigotry. Almost all Christian bigotry can be justified by a desire to keep people from eternal torture - a nice thing if it's sincere, but it's still bigotry.

So even if one discriminates for entirely gentle and loving reasons - it is still bigotry. It's not ugly raging "kill em all" bigotry, but bigotry it remains. Why dress it up in euphemisms?

I think choosing examples from people who are discriminated in favour of due to disability is pretty tangental. The reason certain laws might apply to the blind is because they cannot utilise a very important sense. I don't see how being deprived of one's sight is equivalent to fancying people of the same gender.

Perhaps the lack of clarity is my fault - all things being equal in terms of disability I think it an admirable social goal to promote equality,

If those chaps are breaking actual laws then they should be prosecuted,

It has reported on his plans to sue. I don't see how he has a good chance bearing in mind that the UK isn't a signatory to the same free speech laws he seems to cite - posterity will judge.

I don't quite get that. Radical islamists are blowing stuff up, other religions are not. So what are you saying about that? "Well we can't really pinpoint that one group is more violent than the other."
Yes we can. It's right here.

And that's only the first 6 days of this month. You show me the list of what Christians blew up this month.

And why are you blending Israels military in with terrorism? How is Israel responsible for it's enemies hiding behind civilians? Even per capita Jews are less blow-up-ee than muslims.

Well, I personally don't care about gayness. But some Christians do. I don't think they dislike the person, just the choice.
You just defined all disagreement with a political agenda as bigotry.

Hmm... ok. Only to play the devils advocate. How about polygamy, marrying ones sister, a minor, or dogs? Why should those restrictions stay government objectives but not this restriction?

Why does society make laws? Obviously to prevent harm and keep order. Why are there drunk driving laws? It does not harm anyone to drive drunk. So why is it a government objective to restrict me from driving drunk and thereby take my freedom, if I wanted to do that? Because we seem to have decided that it is likely to cause harm. That is enough to restrict it, because we decide we want to.

I don't understand either but they said that he had good chances with that because the Brits couldn't just put a radio host on a list with a bunch of terrorists. And I didn't get that from Savages show.

I doubt the media would make such comparitive lists available - the eyes are currently on the Muslim world as an area of unrest.

Go back a but further and there were the 40 million victims of Roman Catholic Germany in WW2, 11 million of which were systematically murdered to some degree. History's only successful Genocide was carried out by Protestant Britain.

Never said Israel's military were terrorists - but that per capita Israelis are probably responsible for more civilian deaths than any other modern regime. It is not only terrorists that blow things up, and we were specifically talking about 'people who blow things up'.

It can be, but I personally think this is another tangetal point. A concpetual system of how to organise a society is different to a desire for fair mindedness in regards to a human right.

I personally find it hard to get worked up about what happens between consenting adults. Historically polygamy has been tied in with patriarchal societies and has been used as a tool to keep women in their place - which I object to. If those involved in a polygamous relationship are all happy enough with it I don't see an issue personally.

Children and animals are not consenting adults.

Not sure on brither-sister. Seems intrinsically yucky and an obvious forerunner of encouraging inbreeding. On the other hand it is between consenting adults. I guess it's pretty harmless unless a pregnancy results.

We seem to have decided that it is likely to cause harm based on evidence of the proportion of over-the-limit drivers who end up in accidents compared to those who aren't, and the knowledge that inebriation dulls sensation.

On the other hand the only rational argument I've seen the proponents of Prop 8 give is that to be homosexual means a greater risk of being depressed - which opponents of Prop 8 argue is entirely down to discriminatory measures - like Prop 8.

But as you say, there's no real disagreement here. Such lists are silly.

Well as we said earlier the people on the list are not "a bunch of terrorists". Calling them such is media spin on Savage's part. They are by and large people who have made inciteful remarks, as Savage has done.

Now you know how we righties feel when the media doesn't report ones part of the story, eh? :flowers:

The problem is non-state violence.

On the point of religionists being murderous I can only point to atheist China and Russia's history.

I like the non-militant approach to gay marriage by the Europeans. They don't try to force it down the throats of everyone, you can just marry the other gender because it makes a lot of people happy, not because it is a right.

The proponents of prop 8 seem to think that it will hurt the nation if we let people marry the same gender.
They have a point. Empires that embraced homosexuality usually went away.

Another problem is the gay lobby wanting to teach in schools. Gay marriage would open their doors. Officially it would be treated as "equal", but in reality it would allow the gay lobby to indoctrinate children.

I agree. It seems they threw a Jewish conservative on the list to appease the muslims when they wanted to ban a bunch of muslims.
Which is pretty frightening.

Not true. Speaking from utility and utility alone homosexuality is pathological.

The gay marriage approach makes little to no sense to me. Marriage is a choice to be left to the church even after it has been legalized, civil unions would be a much more sensible and far less stigmatic approach.

By such reasoning infertile people, or those who just happen to not want children, are far more pathological - indicative of disease(?) - than homosexuals.

Why does marriage belong to the church? If marriage does belong to the church why do same sex couples threaten it in a manner that Hindus or atheists apparently do not?

If a particular church maintains that they will not wed homosexuals I doubt that is something that can be resolved - but that churches declare marriage between homosexuals to be something the state should proscribe is something that is none of their business really.

Of course, though pathological is not the word for it, thats sloppy logic/ ignorance of the meaning of the word.

HA. Clearly you have never met a fundamentalist and asked him about atheists.

The ability to marry belongs to 'the church' because only certain institutions are permitted to marry a couple by law, and the church(any religious institution whatsoever) reserves the right to marry who they choose as do the individuals (priests, what have you).

If your assertion that marriage is to be left up to churches is the case, why should christian homosexuals be denied what hindu or atheist heterosexuals are legally allowed?