BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Should Koran-protest pastor be banned from the UK?

08:26 UK time, Sunday, 12 December 2010

Campaigners are calling for a controversial US pastor to be banned from entering the UK to share his views on Islam with activists. Should the visit be prevented?

Terry Jones attracted condemnation when he threatened to burn copies of the Koran on this year's 9/11 anniversary.

The English Defence League has invited the pastor to speak at a rally in Luton in February next year. Anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate is urging the home secretary to stop the visit.

Should Mr Jones be allowed to speak freely, or should he be banned from visiting the UK? What would his visit achieve?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 17

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 3.

    Yes he should be allowed to visit, why not? Why do we ban only 'Right Wing Nutters' and let the 'Loony Left Brigade' run riot? Do we, or do we not live in a democracy? Obviously the answer is no!

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 5.

    It should not even require discussion or thought. There is NO place in our multi-cultural socis.ety for religious or political biggot

  • Comment number 6.

    More religious bigotry from the States. Why should we entertain these people who believe in a sky daddy yet wind up those who believe in a different sky daddy. It doesn't make much sense to me.

  • Comment number 7.

    Should Koran-protest pastor be banned from the UK?
    No, all sides have a right to be heard, how can people make up there own minds if government doesn't allow the whole picture.

  • Comment number 8.

    No there should be no ban. The Home secretary should be targeting the islamofascist organisations in this country, and be putting more pressure on the ones who claim to be moderate to be more forceful in their condemnation of the militants.

  • Comment number 9.

    So having blown this man's importance out of all proportion in early September, the media now wish to shove his travel commitments down our throats?

    Are you sure this is what HYS should be for BBC?

  • Comment number 10.

    Only openness will create a better society, talking of openness what are the intrepid BBC journalists doing by way of investigating if US diplomats have collected any DNA at the UN yet?

  • Comment number 11.

    If his repugnant views are not accepted in his own country of 'Greed, guns and God', why should we entertain him here?

    This is not a free speech issue.

  • Comment number 12.

    The pastor has the idea that the Muslims want to take over the world; I can't imagine why he would come to that conclusion.

  • Comment number 13.

    Freedom of speech isn't just freedom to say what the majority thinks is correct.
    Trying to ban Mr Jones will only give him the oxygen of publicity and a level of credibility he doesn't deserve.

  • Comment number 14.

    Is this the BBC trying to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment? Why not get back to the bigger story which is the USA trying to silence Wikileaks and throttle freedom of speech!

  • Comment number 15.

    UK never banned Islamic extremists like Pakistani general Musharraf who openly admitted to acts of terrorism in India. Even UK minister and PM has openly criticized that. So why ban now?

  • Comment number 16.

    Of course he should be allowed to visit. Last I looked we still lived in a democracy with a right of free speech. We seem to bend over backwards to ensure Islamic radicals get their chance to criticise everything about OUR society, so why shouldn't it work the other way? Oh of course, that wouldn't be very PC would it...

  • Comment number 17.

    In a country, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech no one should be prevented from expressing their opinions, however much those opinions upset other people.

    It would be further evidence that the UK is degenerating into a state where freedom is no longer valued, if the pastor were banned.

  • Comment number 18.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 19.

    I dislike the comments this man has made in the past, as I dislike ALL pronouncements by Religious spokemen (the description I would use would becensored by the moderators). This mans doctine seems to be at best unworthy of a Christian and at worse unlawful.
    I will of course fight for his right to freedom of speech, that freedom must know few bounds, and his utterances must be judged in context and occasion. Banning a speaker simply because you dislike what he says is not the answer.
    For those with a Religious belief, leave it to your God to deal with. (Gods are normally big enough to deal with criticism, or they cannot count as Gods.)
    AS for the rest of us, his words are simple garbage.

    His visit must be allowed , if only to show that freedom of speech still exists in the UK.

  • Comment number 20.

    So long as Muslim preachers continue to voice their messages of hate against us without sanction, then this pastor should be allowed into the UK to attend his meeting. This is one of the major flaws of 'multicultural' Britain - unconditional toleration and acceptance of all aspects of other faiths and their customs at the expense of our own religion and traditions. It creates resentment and does nothing to serve the cause of harmony in our society.

  • Comment number 21.

    I don't know enough about this guys "message" to say.

    But I think that people should recognise that the UK is a secular and christian state; and that we do not owe it to Muslims or any other faith to do anything other than understanding their desire to worship. I think we should end positive discrimination in favour of other faiths, not finance education in other faiths, stop considering ourselves multicultural, and if people want to live or visit here, kind of expect them to understand that they will see examples of both secular and christian doctrine and celebration against which they have zero right to criticise, comment upon, or mutter that they are being discriminated against.

    Which doesn't mean that we should entertain people who preach against any other religion in an unhinged or deliberately inflammatory fashion. Speaking lucidly about the problems associated with multiculturalism is fine. Ranting like an idiot is not.

  • Comment number 22.

    Well done BBC for feeding the Muslim-haters yet again.

    Would we allow someone who said the same things about Jews into the country? No, I don't think so either.

    Does the BBC have an agenda about constantly whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment?

    The comments in this HYS are going to be so predictable. Just wait until SystemF wakes up and sees this HYS. LOL.

  • Comment number 23.

    What ever happened to freedom of speech.

  • Comment number 24.

    Don't see what the problem is - the spineless UK "government" allows moslem psychopaths to run amok shrieking about killing anyone who doesn't believe their fairy story. So the presence of another nutter who shrieks about hell 'n' damnation etc etc for not believing his fairy story... should make little difference!

    If I as normal person who dismisses BOTH fairy stories as tripe, were to stand on a street corner bawling my head off about killing members of either sect, I'd be arrested in 2.373 nano seconds - but as long as it's all done within the guise of a load of religious twaddle - then that's OK matey....!!

  • Comment number 25.

    If his words would constitute a crime in the UK, then don't let him in. there seems to be some uninformed people who think Christian Extremists are the ones who get banned, a quick search will show that about half the names listed on the 'name and shame' banned list are Islamic.

  • Comment number 26.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 27.

    We have to begin to distinguish "hate" from difference of opinion, and even more so from differences as to values and ways of life. If we oppose another system of values and way of life, it does not necessarily imply that we must hate it, but it does mean that we must not only understand it, but we must oppose it. If it continues to assert itself against our opposition then hate against that aggression is appropriate, even if we hope that the matter does not go that far as to necessitate that severity of response.

  • Comment number 28.

    OK, here's an idea which I hope would satisfy both sides of the debate. We let him in, let him do his talk to a very small bunch of extremists, but the media and government agree to completely ignore the event giving him no publicity at all (it's the publicity he so craves). Freedom of speech guarenteed and the rest of us will just carry on as if it never happened. How about it BBC?

  • Comment number 29.

    Certainly we have Al'Qaeda members in our prisons not being sent to Pakistan as it would violate their human rights. We have a proven indian islamic hate preacher attempting to gain entry to the UK, and is currently winning. Why shouldn't we allow a guy who preaches hate against islam in? Would it upset the poor dears as everything else seems to do?

  • Comment number 30.

    Wu Shu said.....'Well done BBC for feeding the Muslim-haters yet again.

    Would we allow someone who said the same things about Jews into the country? No, I don't think so either.

    Does the BBC have an agenda about constantly whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment?'

    Wu Shu, your argument is flawed, what about the muslims who hate the rest of us? You don't say anything negative about them, so it's obvious where your sentiments lie.

  • Comment number 31.

    We have Muslim extremists on are streets burning poopies and insulting are troops all the while having police protection to do so.

    Banning this man how ever extremist,would show discrimination.

    14. At 10:15am on 12 Dec 2010, moreram wrote:
    "Is this the BBC trying to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment? Why not get back to the bigger story which is the USA trying to silence Wikileaks and throttle freedom of speech!."

    Seeing though it has two Israeli bashing HYS at once,i think its only fair we balance out the subjects.

    Afterall,we leave in equal society,dont we?.

  • Comment number 32.

    Why should someone be banned because his views don't coincide with the views of the Liberal surrender monkeys who force their views on the public ? If he believes as many people do that Islam is a threat to freedom and liberty and wishes to publicise this fact then he has a right to do so.

  • Comment number 33.


    In the absence of religion or it's newly disguised wording "way of life", earth would have been a much happier planet.

  • Comment number 34.

    Absolutely NOT!!! We allow every other religious maniac into the country, who wishes to preach against Christianity, and extol the virtues of islam. So, why not this one!

  • Comment number 35.

    23. At 10:31am on 12 Dec 2010, Tim wrote:

    What ever happened to freedom of speech.

    ---------------------------

    I think you will find the west has "Selective Freedom of Speech" controlled by the egotistical muppets who head states and media.

  • Comment number 36.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 37.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 38.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 39.

    Wu Shu wrote:

    Well done BBC for feeding the Muslim-haters yet again.

    Would we allow someone who said the same things about Jews into the country? No, I don't think so either.

    Does the BBC have an agenda about constantly whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment?

    ------------------------

    Is this the same BBC which has two simultaneous HYS's open dedicated to deriding Israel?

    And perhaps you'd like to look into how many extremist preachers have entered this country, especially during Labour's reign. Remember Ken Livingstone hugging a man who wanted to throw homosexuals off of cliffs?

  • Comment number 40.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 41.

    We either have freedom of speech or we don't.

    Let him in but totally ignore him. He wants to be a player but if we keep the cameras away and the press(Highly Doubtful) then he will be forgotten before his plane takes off on his return to the U.S.

    If it upsets the Islamic section of society, so what, they must appreciate we live in a democracy and not under Sharia Law.

    If the E.D.L. attend then the police can practice kettling.

    Freedom of Speech is paramount by all persuasions of society it's how we help resolve our issues.

  • Comment number 42.

    PaganView wrote:

    Wu Shu said.....'Well done BBC for feeding the Muslim-haters yet again.

    Would we allow someone who said the same things about Jews into the country? No, I don't think so either.

    Does the BBC have an agenda about constantly whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment?'

    Wu Shu, your argument is flawed, what about the muslims who hate the rest of us? You don't say anything negative about them, so it's obvious where your sentiments lie.


    If you scan through his/her posts, it is indeed abundantly clear what his/her views are - silence anyone who has the nerve to speak out against the political movement known as "islam", but allow any views in support of it or its poitical motives. Most of it is quite funny to read actually.

  • Comment number 43.


    There goes the rhetoric of "Freedom of Speech", the most hypocritic legislation ever passed.

  • Comment number 44.

    No,he shouldn't be barred from entering the country but niether should he be provided with any protection. If these religeous fanatics have such faith in their twisted beliefs then that is all the protection that they are entitled to, or need. I doubt if any God with an ounce of self-respect is in a hurry to populate His/Her,Heaven/Paradise with dipsticks like this so he'll be as safe as houses.

  • Comment number 45.

    No my beleif is we should not entertain any extremists If we have to he should be made to share a cell with one of those clerics that preach hatred we should lock them all up
    and treat them eith the contempt they deserve

  • Comment number 46.

    22. At 10:30am on 12 Dec 2010, Wu Shu wrote:
    "Would we allow someone who said the same things about Jews into the country? No, I don't think so either."

    We have many in this country and let in many who says such against Jews,didnt Ken Livingston make a man a guest of honour who promoted suicide attacks against Israeli civilians?.

    Oh,i suggest you go to the two Israeli bashing HYS going on now and look at some of the comments about Jews ruling America,the EU and the world.

    Is Islam the only religion free from criticism?.


  • Comment number 47.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 48.

    "Should Koran-protest pastor be banned from the UK?" - hys:

    No - because:
    He has his views on something and HOPEFULLY, we believe in free speech - even though a MINORITY may not agree.

    IN MY PERSONAL OPINION:
    He is FAR from the most dangerous & divisive visitor we have allowed to these shores.

    He merely disagrees with the views of a BOOK.

    We wouldn't ban him if he threatened to burn a Bible.

    We should NOT allow a MINORITY to deny the MAJORITY.

    NO Religious book should have preference over another.

    Perhaps if the Koran did NOT espouse SUCH violent and dismissive actions against other Religions - there would be no NEED for people like Terry Jones to make his point.

    In this age of 'terrorism', the contents of the Koran do not exactly preach universal Peace. It's time that it's 'followers' admitted this AND openly refuted some of it's contents - for the sake of Universal Peace between ALL Religions - unless they have a different view...

  • Comment number 49.

    Well we are a democracy, so we have to let him enter and speak. Doesn't mean we have to listen, as most thinking people won't listen. The small minority that do listen to extremists (of any persuasion) do have the right to do so, provided they don't breach the law. We have suitable laws in this country to deal with the pastor if he actually attempts to incite violence etc. So let the man speak, and let us laugh at him :-)

  • Comment number 50.

    Much as I don't care for this rabid individual I still think he should be allowed to visit this country, by all means if he breaks the law when here have him arrested.
    The so called English Defence league have not been declared an illegal organisation so until he breaks the law I believe he should be free to travel.
    Otherwise you may as well arrest every male as a potential rapist/mugger etc.

  • Comment number 51.

    No, I don't think he should be allowed in.

    We have quite enough muppets of our own without allowing in this bloke from the foreign contingency of muppetry.

  • Comment number 52.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 53.

    Why should he be banned? He did not burn any holy book, it was just a verbal protest!!! against a small group of brainwasher terrorist,, or crazy fools? who kill innocent woman and children, and they give very many good Moslems a very bad name!!!!!

  • Comment number 54.

    No he shouldn't be banned, just ignored. If only the media, desperate for 'news', would not give this 'man' the attention he so clearly craves there would be little or no problem. Instead it's going to be blown up out of all proportions......much like the poppy burning incident where the BBC reporting was more focussed on the EDL supporters who got arrested for quite rightly reacting to the muslim protesters provocation. I wonder who is going to get the bigger sentence if/ when that comes to court???

    For clarity I have nothing against anyone of any religion, I just detest those who use religion as a facade to give their hate a 'respectable' front, regardless of which religion they're using.

  • Comment number 55.

    We have freedom of speech, don't we? And I'm pretty sure if this Mr. Jones should enter our jolly kingdom then his God will protect him from any marauding hordes.
    Personally, I'd like all " extremists" to go away and fight their battles elsewhere. Who would believe that in the 21st century we still need to fight, bomb, spit and kill each other. One day we will grow up. Until then it seems we have little idea how to proclaim " peace on earth".

  • Comment number 56.

    Yes. This man preaches hatred and so should be banned. It should make no difference what your religion is: anyone who preaches hatred, regardless of the religion of the preacher of hate, that individual should be banned from the UK.

    If he was preaching peace, tolerance and love for our fellow men - like Jesus Christ did, then there should be no objection.

    Individuals who preach hate, regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim or another religion, are only going to create problems and will be putting fuel on a fire that should not be lit.

    The UK can do without the disease of hatred and any individuals preaching such hatred. So ban ALL preachers of hate regardless of their religion.

  • Comment number 57.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 58.

    as mentioned by a previous poster, muslims are allowed to take to the streets and show total disregard to grieving families who have lost loved ones past and present. burning poppies seems fine, it must be ok if your allowed to do it with full police protection. but make a cartoon of their "god" and thats it ,your dead. the young man who urinated on the war memorial got nationwide condemnation so why cant muslims who do far worse receive the same treatment ? this pastor is just voicing opinions that we in this country are not allowed to, well not in public.

  • Comment number 59.

    Here we go again - religious factions at each others' throats because one expresses violent hatred for the other.

    Religion doesn't solve anything. All it does is sow seeds of unrest around the globe.

    Don't ban him from entering the UK, as that will merely strengthen the position of Islamists. Better to ban religion altogether.

  • Comment number 60.

    The US would not hesitate to exclude a UK person if they had done and said exactly the same as Pastor Terry Jones.

    I am sure this invite was made public knowing full well that he would be banned and the EDL will have had the free publicity.

    I am sure Pastor Jones could say what he wants via video conferencing.

    His views are un-Christian and whilst I dont want the extremist Moslems in the UK that preach hatred and death to UK troops in Afghanistan, the introduction of Sharia Law and for the UK to become a Islamic state, I dont want someonehere who's sole aim is to incite hatred.

    Let the US keep their own rubbish as we have enough of our own.

  • Comment number 61.

    No he should not be banned from entering the UK.
    Has he broken any laws in this country or his own? No.

    Why do we allow a small, vocal minority to dictate what we can and cannot do or say here? Why do the groups like Unite Against Fascism always appear to be the most fanatical & dogmatic about opposing freedom & unity in the name of 'anti-racism'?

    To the BBC: Stop trying to bend over backwards for people who despise the liberal views that you try to defend so dearly.

  • Comment number 62.

    31. At 10:43am on 12 Dec 2010, panchopablo wrote:
    We have Muslim extremists on are streets burning poopies and insulting are troops all the while having police protection to do so.
    Banning this man how ever extremist,would show discrimination.
    14. At 10:15am on 12 Dec 2010, moreram wrote:
    "Is this the BBC trying to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment? Why not get back to the bigger story which is the USA trying to silence Wikileaks and throttle freedom of speech!."
    Seeing though it has two Israeli bashing HYS at once,i think its only fair we balance out the subjects.
    After all, we live in an equal society, don't we?.
    _____________________________________________________
    Get it right Sancho-Pancho! I'm anti Zionist and anti illegal building of settlements in contravention of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 446. I support Israels right to exist but not to continuously expand while blaming the refusal to negotiate on the Palestinians' reluctance to renounce violence while being inhumanely "kettled" in the West Bank.
    However, let's not get sidetracked, getting back to topic, why is the BBC giving exposure to extremists? Why give the oxygen of media attention to fanatics of any persuasion? Let them shout and scream about one god or another till they go blue in the face. DON'T ENTER INTO IT! I'm sure the BBC decided on this HYS topic for a Sunday morning to whip up anti Muslim sentiment to deflect attention from the real big news happening in the world at the moment - Wikileaks and the arrest of Julian Assange. Why not discuss the calls by the right-wing in the US for Mr Assange's assassination by the CIA?
    Okey BBC, if you are struggeling to find real news I will give you an example of it:http://themoderatevoice.com/94806/the-war-against-wikileaks-julian-assange-and-the-first-amendment/
    A lot more relevant than a mad mullah of any persuasion don't you think?

  • Comment number 63.

    There are already a galore of problems and impasse facing this world in the 21st century - the most exploding power keg being misconstrued religion. Freedom does not mean liberty to openly streak in the public. It carries the tag of responibilities. All world religions brag about their steadfast and the shortest route to eternity. In the disgorging melee of venom and hatred the sacrosanct precept of humanity gets buried. UK or for that matter any other country should not invite such devilish brutes of all religious denominations to spread rancour and mayhem among the members of the community through their lop-sided, fiery yet bereft of logic hate speeches and sloganeering.

  • Comment number 64.

    Yes, he should be barred from entering the UK. There is freedom of speech, and there are people who abuse that freedom. This 'pastor' is one such person, and he should be told in no uncertain terms that he is not welcome here. If he were allowed in, he would inflame passions, and stir up racial and religious divisions, so on this basis also he should not be allowed entry into the UK.

  • Comment number 65.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 66.

    He burns books.

    In response we are threatened with acts of violence in the name of somebodies imaginary best friend. Sweden suffered just this fate this weekend.

    I know who I would ban.

  • Comment number 67.

    Well well auntie Beeb... there seems to be a strange lack of any HYS topics relating to Wikileaks and the political prisoner Julian Assange.. I bet a lot of people would like an opportunity to vent some spleen on this subject... Government pressure eh?

  • Comment number 68.

    neither extremist Mullahs nor extremist Pastors nor extremist Rabbis should be tolerated in the UK. It is agianst the law to incite hatred and violence, or to indulge in acts which threaten public law and order. If there is a place for radicalism in religion, the religion needs to clean house, or itself not be tolerated

  • Comment number 69.

    Whilst I think he's an idiot, he has a right to free speech. I also reserve the right to burn Bibles in front of him.

  • Comment number 70.

    I thought Christianity was all about love, compassion and all people are equal, at least that is the sentiment from the C of E bible. Maybe this guy who was "sent by God" to preach has a later version or maybe one he has written himself. He is not a Christian in my book, but he must be allowed into the UK to spout his rubbish and even maybe get a few followers, who hopefully who follow him back to the usa.

  • Comment number 71.

    3. At 09:59am on 12 Dec 2010, knownought wrote:

    Yes he should be allowed to visit, why not? Why do we ban only 'Right Wing Nutters' and let the 'Loony Left Brigade' run riot? Do we, or do we not live in a democracy? Obviously the answer is no!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the rabid response this topic is likely to draw from right wing nutters I think you are about to discover that there is no shortage of them.

    In much the same way another carefully selected topic would have the effect of drawing a mass of left wing nutters to it's subject matter.

    This I think proves that the UK does in fact have a pretty fair balance of nutters and also proves the old and well known law that opposites attract.

    Being a BBC moderator must be quite an entertaining job at times. Light the blue touch paper and stand well back. :-)

  • Comment number 72.

    The man responded to appeals and refrained from burning the koran. He has shown himself a far more reasonable human than those on the other side of the divide who chop off heads and exterminate their christian captives no matter the beggings and pleadings.And, good grief, all he threatened to do was incinerate a book, not wipe out a human life.

    If he's turned back from entering the UK when death-spitting mullahs are a dozen for a pfennig, then it will confirm Britain in my eyes as the place I've always suspected it to be.

  • Comment number 73.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 74.

    Is ther nothing more worthwhile in the news that deserves a bit of debate?

  • Comment number 75.

    Left wing students are allowed to daub obsecenties over the memorials to those who fought and died for Britain's freedom. But a vicar who is rude about Muslims should not be allowed into the country? Did those war heroes die in vain?

  • Comment number 76.

    1. At 09:40am on 12 Dec 2010, steve butler wrote:
    If muslims are allowed to preach hatred, why shouldn't this guy? If we are going to bend over backwards for one sect, we should do it for all of them. Far better to just ban the lot.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    Agree entirely! Alternatively we could NOT bend over for ANY sect and kick them all out in the process of banning this guy? But then think about the terr's that would creep out of the woodwork if this guy was given a platform? Gives MI5 more intel'!!

  • Comment number 77.

    #62 moreram

    I agree the premature closure of the Wikileaks item and the introduction of this scurrilous item (plus the equally banal items on Coronation Street and John Lennon) demonstrates an unhealthiness in the BBC's agenda.

    Perhaps the BBC need to allow the public to determine what subjects should be aired on HYS as it once did a long time ago.

    It is not the role of the media, especially the license payer funded BBC, to tell us what is important and an item about a two bit preacher, in terms of relevance to current affairs, is frankly pathetic.

  • Comment number 78.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 79.

    "28. At 10:40am on 12 Dec 2010, qwerty wrote:
    OK, here's an idea which I hope would satisfy both sides of the debate. We let him in, let him do his talk to a very small bunch of extremists, but the media and government agree to completely ignore the event giving him no publicity at all (it's the publicity he so craves). Freedom of speech guarenteed and the rest of us will just carry on as if it never happened. How about it BBC? "

    I agree, the media has built up this man's importance out of all proportion to what he actually does. Can he please be given the obscurity he deserves?

  • Comment number 80.

    If we allow certain immams to not only preach hatred but pay for them to be here then we should allow this guy to come and give opinion. The day we stop him is the day we stop being a democracy. As far as i`m concerned they should all be chucked on an island and left to sort it out themselves. We have far more pressing problems than to listen to people arguing over who`s god is the right one. Playground mentality if you ask me.

  • Comment number 81.

    It never ceases to amaze me how much anger and hate is generated over something that, although it has different names, is exactly the same: religion. I think that it is simply the abdication of your own responsibilities to some "higher power" . I wish I could accept brainwashing on this scale.....

  • Comment number 82.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 83.

    Yes, let him in. I would like to hear what he has to say. It's been part of our way of life to have people standing on soap boxes in Hyde Park spouting about all sorts of subjects. Freedom of speech is good and, in any case, if we don't like what he has to say we don't have to take any notice. Whether he's preaching hate or love, let's make up our own minds. Just one man against the others.

  • Comment number 84.

    Silly people burning things.

    Grow up?

  • Comment number 85.

    People, be reasonable! The man comes from Florida, which along with Texas is the heart of redneck territory. if, in his home state, the best he can do is 50 adherents, just how effective is his hate campaign? It seems the only interest in his crusade comes from sensational media outlets, and BBC has joined the circus. Let him into Britain, and then make fun of him and his message. Take him seriously and you descend to his base level.

  • Comment number 86.

    40. At 10:55am on 12 Dec 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:

    23. At 10:31am on 12 Dec 2010, Tim wrote:
    What ever happened to freedom of speech.

    =======================================

    Its under lock & key in London zoo, as any dangerous animal is.

    ---------------------------------

    Sharing a cage with Julian Assange!

  • Comment number 87.

    He should be allowed in. We have free speech in this country. However the press should report his visit in context and with balance.

  • Comment number 88.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 89.

    73. At 11:40am on 12 Dec 2010, the-moog wrote:

    69. At 11:33am on 12 Dec 2010, Richard wrote:

    Whilst I think he's an idiot, he has a right to free speech. I also reserve the right to burn Bibles in front of him.

    ____________________

    Free in the knowledge no one's going to kill you for that!
    _________________________________________
    So what's your point moog, kill them first?

  • Comment number 90.

    How did we allow ourselves to begin a journey toward a religious war?

  • Comment number 91.

    74. At 11:42am on 12 Dec 2010, ziggyboy wrote:

    Is ther nothing more worthwhile in the news that deserves a bit of debate?
    ______________________________________________________
    Exactly! Though moog seems to have found his mojo.

  • Comment number 92.

    77. At 11:44am on 12 Dec 2010, Aneeta Trikk wrote:

    #62 moreram

    I agree the premature closure of the Wikileaks item and the introduction of this scurrilous item (plus the equally banal items on Coronation Street and John Lennon) demonstrates an unhealthiness in the BBC's agenda.

    Perhaps the BBC need to allow the public to determine what subjects should be aired on HYS as it once did a long time ago.

    It is not the role of the media, especially the license payer funded BBC, to tell us what is important and an item about a two bit preacher, in terms of relevance to current affairs, is frankly pathetic.
    _________________________________________________________
    Thanks Aneeta!

  • Comment number 93.

    Yes, he should be allowed in! The issue is not one of free speech; it is simple fairness. We seem to allow antagonistic elements to roam the country calling for death on their targets and threatening violence to anyone who opposes them. On that basis, why shouldn't a man, who didn't actually do the deed he is being criticised for, be permitted a platform in this country?

  • Comment number 94.

    Whatever happened to free speech?

  • Comment number 95.

    74. At 11:42am on 12 Dec 2010, ziggyboy wrote:
    Is ther nothing more worthwhile in the news that deserves a bit of debate?

    -------------------

    You bet. But the BBC is frightened of anything contentious. People might start realising that we are getting pretty fed up with the way things are going in the UK.

  • Comment number 96.

    88. At 11:51am on 12 Dec 2010, the-moog wrote:

    80. At 11:46am on 12 Dec 2010, corncobuk wrote:

    If we allow certain immams to not only preach hatred but pay for them to be here then we should allow this guy to come and give opinion. The day we stop him is the day we stop being a democracy. As far as i`m concerned they should all be chucked on an island and left to sort it out themselves. We have far more pressing problems than to listen to people arguing over who`s god is the right one. Playground mentality if you ask me.

    _________________________

    Judging from your other posts, 'playground mentality', sounds like a mindset you're very familiar with!

    ----------------------------------------

    Familiar with, indeed. A practitioner, no. I rely on posts such as yours for such examples.

  • Comment number 97.

    Personally, I think it's a bit pointless him coming here: if he really wants to have an effect, why doesn't he try preaching in Saudi Arabia?

    More importantly, can we discuss the US governments dirty tricks campaign against Julian Assange?

  • Comment number 98.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 99.

    Why impose a ban? I thought we only punished those convicted of crimes.
    Banning him from the UK because you don't like what you think he might say?

    Does the UK government not have a sense of morality anymore?

    1. Free Speech
    2. Innocent until proven guilty [i.e. one must be convicted before a punishment is imposed]

  • Comment number 100.

    Many people in Britain are disturbed by the growth of the muslim community in Britain and its benign treatment by the authorities inspite of bombings, provocation and sympathy for jihadist anti western causes. We are effectively denied a voice.

    We have to listen and see radical muslims parade on British streets so
    Why shouldn't Terry Jones be allowed to speak since he represents in part many of the views of British people. He should be heard.

    If he is banned and if this post is banned it just proves that freedom of speech is a one sided affair.

 

Page 1 of 17

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.