Reverting to the topic of this thread, I see that David Cameron has called for ‘preachers of hate’ to be denied entry to the UK, and for extremist Islamist movements such as Hizb-ut–Tharir and Hezbollah to be banned.

You asked the perfectly valid question:

The classic liberal dilemma is, how far do you go in tolerating intolerance? I know extreme libertarians who argue that if 51% vote for a dictatorship, it is the democratic duty of the other 49% to submit. Do you agree?

No I do not agree. I have never taken the view what a democracy was about a once off majority vote. It is about a sustainable commitment, over time, to allow a change of governance in the future. So, it is not up to one generation, or one electorate to sell it down the tubes. I would have thought that was the Liberal position. Something all citizens should have taught to them at home and at school and through fora like Liberal Conspiracy.

Libertarians? Well they have a somewhat different agenda.

Modern Liberal democracies are about rights and the rule of law almost as much as they are about voting, I think.

The classic liberal dilemma is, how far do you go in tolerating intolerance? I know extreme libertarians who argue that if 51% vote for a dictatorship, it is the democratic duty of the other 49% to submit. Do you agree?

Sure, there are plenty of bloggers who will take one side of an issue and run with it.

However, the vast majority of Turks in Germany vote for the SPD, which is probably best characterised as a Liberal / Left Political Party.

My point merely being that you should have more confidence in the likelyhood that a society will change it’s immigrants more than the immigrants will change the society. With the usual caveats about the new whole being better and bigger than its’ parts. On immigrants, it takes some effort to uproot yourself from one society and go and live in another. They have, it seems to me, already demonstrated that degree of adaptability.

The Wikipedia article on this subject is perhaps a little too rosy, but it certainly doesn’t support your contention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany

There are plenty of bloggers in Europe – not extreme right-wing ones, either – who are of a different opinion.

a visit visa is a bit different to rights of residency, but even on a visit visa form questions about good character, and around any possible support for terrorism and glorifying terrorist activity, apply – already. I should imagine that people will clearly have different opinions on whether Qaradawi will ‘not pass’ some of those questions.

P.S. Unless something has changed drastically, French citizens – by the way- (obviously) Do not need to apply for visas to come over to the UK – so Le Pen definitely would not have gone through the same procedure as Qaradawi ! So is the comparison any good? there’s no question of ‘keeping’ Le Pen out – freedom of travel again, applying to some, and not to others. )

Of course no-one wants benefit scroungers. But, hordes of Turks are already in Western Europe, particularily Germany. Comparatively speaking, they don’t seem to be causing too much of a problem.

Douglas – Benefit scroungers will sign up to anything! Are you really looking forward with complacency to hordes of Turks moving into Europe? I regard the prospect with trepidation.

Well, Turkey seems to be trying awful hard, don’t you think?

Which is the interesting bit really about carrots and sticks. The have to sign up to the EUs social legislation if they want membership. And, whatever else you might think about the EU, the social legislation is pretty good.

If you don’t want to hear certain people’s views, don’t listen to them. If others do, and are thereby incited to anti-social behaviour, it becomes a matter for the courts.

Do let’s try to thrash out and apply Liberal principles on a blog called ‘LC’!

Incidentally, Qaradawi can’t come here for NHS treatment and get it for free. He’ll have to pay.

But anyway, the answer to this is that we let in Le Pen not long ago.

Anyway, if your point is that because we can turn away foreign people who’s views we don’t want to hear, then I’m afraid you don’t really believe in free speech – because you’ll shut it down when the law allows you to.

If we truly believe in free speech, then letting outside demagogues have the same standards as our own demagogues is the only way.

And Douglas Clark, as a product of the ‘diaspora’ myself [I have Northern Irish and Lebanese ancestry, as well as Old English] I’m not prejudiced against immigrants who are keen to meld into wider British society, as my Arab grandfather was . Muslims show insufficient signs of being willing to do so. Show me a predominantly Islamic State committed to a shared society with non-Muslims on equal terms, and I’ll introduce you to a snowman in the Sahara desert. As for your false comparison of Qaradawi with Ian Paisley, have you studied Qaradawi’s blogsite and the widespread enthusiasm for his teachings in the Middle East? Perhaps Livingstone is correct, and Qaradawi IS a moderate Muslim – in which case, heaven help us all!

False analogy. The BNP are home grown extrmists who have a legitimate right to express their views (however unpalatable to most) as participants in a a democracy. This guy (who incidentally is coming here for NHS treatment) is a foreign extremist with no such rights, and the government has no such obligations towards him.
Would you be in favour of granting a visa to a foreign far right spokesman – that is the correct analogy.

Oh dear!

I do think you are overstating your case, just a tad.

As an analogy, it would be perfectly fair to describe the Reverend Iain Paisley as a sincere, devout and learned Protestant. But what I remember, most, about him was his ability to work a crowd.

I am fairly convinced that the fears that you have over Muslims are the same fears that previous generations have expressed about previous diasporas to this country. The Irish, the Jews and others have been demonised by folk that were worried about change. The reality is that most of these groups are now pretty much indistinguishable in terms of aspirations and social commitment to our, shared, society. I’d expect that process to work for Muslims too. Might take a while, right enough.

I didn’t even know you read this site. Just to say I’m really pleased you have chosen to comment here. That should liven things up a bit!

Probably just serendipity, but I commented a while ago that it needed folk like you, and other women, if it was going to be meaningful.

Maybe we’ll find something to disagree over?

perhaps the wider question should be – if countries say they are in favour of speech, should that mean they also should not have immigration controls – because they have to allow everyone the right to come to their country – to speak.

that would be fun…!

of course i’ve always pointed out that those who keep talking about the free market never seem to take into account the lack of freedom of movement (or – dependent on the State’s approval) But there you go..

You hit the nail on the head there!

I’m not convinced about rights to residency for folk that disagree with the way we organise ourselves, but it is certainly a limitation on free speech to deny them the right to speak.

In Qaradawi’s case, I’d like to see him debate with a moderate. Unfortunately he is just a rabble rouser. He probably can’t do debates with moderates.

seems like we’re talking about his right to come to the UK, ( for medical reasons, in this case?) which is really about his right to travel isn’t it.

would it be the same thing if there was talk of not letting any of al-qaradawi’s writings being published, here. clearly not, so there are different factors involved.

one is, the right of the man to visit like any other foreign citizen, (i.e. one applies for permission and sees whether it is granted, it is certainly not automatic and generally does depend on one being able to show ‘good character’/lack of activity that could be considered ’subversive’ – i.e. ‘dodgy’ people of any kind will find it much harder to get a visa of any kind

and the other thing is the right of the man to be heard when he speaks, and while obviously that can include being physically present, it is not restricted to it.

seems to me right now it might be more of a human rights issue for poor old qaradawi if he wants to go to hospital. a bit of christian charity might be a good way to snub him really..heh.

–
but obviously the bottom line is, if you have to ask the State’s permission to come and visit, then if the State doesn’t like you, you’ll have some trouble. that’s kind of the whole point of States controlling who goes in and who doesn’t. If people don’t like that thing and are in favour of free movement generally, that we can talk about!
–

perhaps the wider question should be – if countries say they are in favour of speech, should that mean they also should not have immigration controls – because they have to allow everyone the right to come to their country – to speak.

that would be fun…!

of course i’ve always pointed out that those who keep talking about the free market never seem to take into account the lack of freedom of movement (or – dependent on the State’s approval) But there you go..

My problem is that standard is arbitary and opaque. Any government is free to deny visa to people it doesn’t like and admit people it likes without any consideration for whether those views should be heard or not (unless of course they were illegal etc).

So, for example, all those young Tories who wanted to ‘hang Nelson Mandela’ during the 80s would no doubt have lobbied the govt then to ban him from coming here. Of course, Qaradawi doesn’t come near Mandela but we’re talking about the principle here.

I’d just add that there is a good precedent for BNP-like groups: William Pierce, an American neo-Nazi and the author of The Turner Diaries, was indeed denied a right to visit the UK by the Major government.

I don’t think Qaradawi’s views should be censored e.g. if they are on the web, but I see no good reason to let obnoxious foreigners visit here.

First, Qaradawi has explicitly sanctioned violence against certain groups in the past; Nick Griffin is normally a bit cagier. Qaradawi advocates positions on the treatment of homosexuals and Israeli “occupiers” that are of a different order of nastiness from the BNP’s stated positions. We’re comparing different shades of excrement, true, but the distinction is not meaningless.

But second, Qaradawi is applying to visit Britain from abroad. That places him in a different category to Nick Griffin, who is after all a British citizen, as he’s always keen to remind us. We have a stronger class of sanctions against non-citizens in that we can deport them or refuse them entry. That strikes me as entirely reasonable.

I don’t know whether I’d give him a visa or not; but if, say, a Nick Griffin or a Jean-Marie Le Pen were required to apply for one, I wouldn’t have any real problem with banning them, too.