GUEST POSTING FROM BARRY SPENCE

This is a response to an article in the Daily Mail (online edition), a (cough) newspaper neither Ian nor I rate very highly.

As usual, I am missing something.

This champion of the sacred institution of a free press seems to condemn as
bigotry spoken freedoms (or any communicated in any way other than the
press) by the rest of us. If anyone objects to the visit (for whatever
reasons) are they bigots for their reasons of for nothing more than daring
to object in itself?

He seems also to reckon that we welcomed without protest in the past many
blood-stained, butchering tyrants and terrorists, plus genocidal criminals,
mass rapists, mysoginists, homophobics and true religious and/or political
bigots. A far greater crime to him seems to be suppression of a free press! This
"non-objection policy" may be only generally correct due to our apathy, but quoting Ceausescu

and Zuma as examples was unwise - I clearly recall many objections to their

specific presences here. We actually have objected to many others, such as
Thatcher’s best pal Pinochet (the mass butcher of The Disappeared) as one notable example. But presuming he is right - that we never objected to anyone before

- his logic is that we are obliged to continue not objecting, that we lose

by default the right to invent the idea of objecting for this one more visitor.

"Two (or more) wrongs DO make a right", do they?

Ye and me - plus a surprisingly large number of growing moaners - object to
the visit, but we have taken no consideration of past visitors' track
records and how they were welcomed. We should not do so, as the objection is
only to HIM, NOW. Is there some mythical "bigger picture" that I'm missing,
or am I as bigoted as you?

"I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING...." (Clint Eastwood)

I actually object to the increasing abuse of the word "bigot" because it
became a precedent when applied to mind-reading by the gifted magician
Gordon Brown. He dismissed a woman as a bigot BEFORE she even brought up her
views on "immigrants from Eastern Europe" - views that WE never heard, so
could not judge her on. However, Gordy obviously knew the full contents of

her unspoken mind in order to be able to pass judgement. Some people are now branding
others as bigots, basing this on their PRESUMPTION of what the victim of
their supernatural probing thinks. Very dangerous..... I always thought a
bigoted (or not) person had to be judged solely on what thoughts they
EXPRESSED to others! Again, what am I missing?

Thought Police rule!