Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy
Yes, many will laugh but there will also be a sizable IMO minority that will like what he has to say.
Especially in the light of:
Linky
I'm sure many will also say that if we had been a bit more selective about who we had let in over the decades we might be somewhat safer now?
Nor should violence or the threat of violence be used an excuse to suppress views that a vocal minority, particularly on the left, disapprove of. |
Threats of violence? You mean the sorts that the likes of the BNP, EDL and other racist groups regularly use? There is a difference between disapproving of someone views, and silencing them.
How many times must someone point out that freedom of speech does not remove the right to reply, or strongly disagree. Freedom of speech means you are able to express your views in an open manner without the threat of sanction by government, it is not a license to say what you like without consequence in broader society. If your views are found wanting by your peers, then their judgement is a fully legitimate and required tenet of the freedom you enjoy.
Also, regarding immigration policy we have seen reductions in crime y/y for decades, and even more so since the 90's and the signing of Maastricht, so as we are safer WITH the immigration policy we have had, there is little evidence that we would be any safer with being "selective".