'Pick-up artist' banned from the UK

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Seems Canada [http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2014/11/11/22065256.html?utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_twitter&utm_campaign=Canadians+block+notorious+%27pick-up+artist%27+from+visiting#.VGKKXVQgkaI.twitter] is the latest to deny him entry to their country. So now it's actually up to 3 different countries who have. I can only hope that list continues to grow.

Oh, the petition actually DID get him banned from Canada? Oh goody!

I was beginning to think our jackass federal government would let him in, or make him a guest of the government or something.

So...Good, this jackass isn't allowed to come into Canada. Awesome.

 

[Jesterscup]

I think it's absolutely disgusting that so many people are in favor of denying people entry outside the law, based on difference of opinion. By that logic, anyone could be banned or denied entry.
The difference between people who support this and people denying fugitives or immigrants, is that one pretends it's for a good cause and uses women in general as shields.

This is what I think, but considering how weak willed and ignorant people have shown themselves in the face of any disagreement, it comes as no surprise.

My what a deliciously loaded post...

Lets start deconstruction shall we?

I think it's absolutely disgusting that so many people are in favor of denying people entry outside the law, based on difference of opinion.

As a stand alone premise ( aka, not in context of this person ), Yeah I agree with this, as a European I deal with right-wing politicians banging on about immigration. I'm sure you americans have the same thing. Personally I find this Ironic as ( being british) the entire history of my nation is full of immigrations.

In context however, is your "outside of the law" part of the statement. I can't speak for other countries, but the British legal system is Quite clear, a Visa application will only be denied when there is a legal basis to do so. And ok yes sometimes they get it wrong and it can be challenged, but the basis of assumption should be that the choice was made within a legal framework, and as such was a legal decision.
The implication that the UK government made the choice based on public opinion is highly highly unlikely, as such a decision would not be legal and could be appealed in a court of law.

The difference between people who support this and people denying fugitives or immigrants, is that one pretends it's for a good cause and uses women in general as shields.

Conceptually, I can agree with the sentiment here. but just under the surface is a whole can of worms. Not allowing people into a country when there is a stated likelihood that they will commit a crime, one thing. Not allowing someone asking for entry into your country another thing. I may not want him in my country, personally my arms are open for anyone who has suffered injustice. Heck, I'll welcome anyone simply wanting a better life.

oh my favourite one is coming up....

considering how weak willed and ignorant people have shown themselves in the face of any disagreement, it comes as no surprise.

You know I have some pretty strong points of view sometimes, it can be infuriating when it feels like I'm right and the other person is being 'stupid'. I know some pretty smart people, I'm kinda smart myself, but these people leave me for dust, until they open their mouth about subjects like this. Everyone has a bias , whether it's because they watch fox news, or read the daily mail, and sometimes that bias informs an opinion without any basis in fact, over time this get reinforced until that bias is considered fact by the person in question. We are all guilty of this, and we are all ignorant of something in some regard....

Back on context ( again ), however the implication in your post ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ), is that those people were weak-willed and ignorant? I would suggest that you look to your own bias. Making assumptions about people simply leads to more intolerance and bias. Try to understand, even if you disagree. Claiming a point of view is ignorant merely promotes the impression that you are yourself ( I'm not saying you are, I'm saying that anyone can fall into this trap ).

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

One of the things I've noticed on these forums ( and the interwebz in general ) , is that people generally fall into one of two camps in a discussion. Sure there is a clear battleground, but often the two sides are making different arguments. It's rather fun to watch "I'm saying A" , " but I'm saying B" , The thing is, that it seems almost by design.

Lets that this:
Camp 'A'
" Vile man, I'm glad. I don't/wouldn't want him in my country"

Camp 'B'
"This is an injustice, you can't restrict an innocent mans rights"

These don't actually match up. Sure come from camp 'B' will debate the nature and legality of his acts ( generally without resolution ), and Some from camp 'A' will make valid points in regards the legality of decisions made. But generally there is enough of the base arguments for no progress to be made.

I'm clearly in camp 'A' here. But thats a biased uninformed opinion, and as such I've avoided making statements about him as a person. What I can do ( and have done ) is repeatedly state The way the law and the UK government works in regards to Visa's. To me it feels ( note: 'feels' - emotional response, detected and acknowledged ) That camp 'B' do not want to accept those points made, because they would then need to counter and advance their argument in the face of a strong rational argument that is a direct response to basic points made.

ok long aside short.. Both sides in pretty much every internet argument, can easily accuse the others of being ignorant and 'weak willed' , that progresses nothing except the antagonism between both sides.

 

[EternallyBored]

I think it's absolutely disgusting that so many people are in favor of denying people entry outside the law, based on difference of opinion. By that logic, anyone could be banned or denied entry.

It's not outside the law, the law gives the UK office the power to ban entry into the country based on a number of criteria, they barred his entry based on those legal criteria, there is nothing outside the law going on here. Read the previous posts in this very thread, the law you are so adamant about explicitly lays out who can be denied entry into the country and why.

People are also allowed to appeal those criteria if they believe they were unfairly denied, but given everything about his videos posted so far, I find it doubtful that the UK court system will do anything other than reinforce the legal standing of the Home Office's decision and uphold their justification as legal.

The difference between people who support this and people denying fugitives or immigrants, is that one pretends it's for a good cause and uses women in general as shields.

This makes no sense, the difference is that one person had publicly posted videos of him committing acts that would be minor crimes within the country he was seeking to gain entrance to, and gave every indication that was consistent with him continuing that behavior if he was allowed entry, as was posted earlier, the UK can bar entry to any individual who the Home office can show would be a detriment to public safety or order.

It is a discretionary power, one the UK is allowed to use or not use based on the individual circumstances, just because you don't like it doesn't mean the UK is acting outside their own laws or statutes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Australia and Canada seem to both be on the list now of countries that don't want him there.

He was kicked out of Australia before the UK denied him a visa.

Yes. Kicked out. As in "was already here and had his visa revoked, given 24 hrs to GTFO".

 

[Maze1125]

I will, however, not have either denied access to a country unless there is evidence of a premeditated crime, because that's what most western societies have agreed upon as a rational and reasonable way of life.

Right. Exactly. Which is why he was denied.
There is blatant evidence of him committing acts which are crimes in the UK.

Done.
By your very own standard he deserved to be denied.

 

[EternallyBored]

Australia and Canada seem to both be on the list now of countries that don't want him there.

He was kicked out of Australia before the UK denied him a visa.

Yes. Kicked out. As in "was already here and had his visa revoked, given 24 hrs to GTFO".

That's actually pretty funny, most border control offices don't exactly do exhaustive background checks, so it's kind of funny to think this guy is getting tossed out pretty much due to his own videos and self-promotion material, if he had kept it to just speech, none of this would have probably happened, but he couldn't resist actually filming himself harassing people.

I will, however, not have either denied access to a country unless there is evidence of a premeditated crime, because that's what most western societies have agreed upon as a rational and reasonable way of life.

Right. Exactly. Which is why he was denied.
There is blatant evidence of him committing acts which are crimes in the UK.

Done.
By your very own standard he deserved to be denied.

Hell, even if there wasn't, smilomaniac is entirely wrong about what most Western societies do, most Western societies are like the UK in that they have laws allowing them to deny access and entry for a number of reasons beyond just criminal or premeditated crime, the UN has not ruled entry into a country for non-refugee reasons as a basic human right, and most Western countries have exercised their border control to kick out or deny people in that past for entirely non-criminal reason.

Most Western countries also have an appeals process for those that believe they were unjustly denied, but I doubt this guy is going to have much luck with an appeal to the UK court system.

EDIT: the US alone has statutes that give them the power to bar entry to the country for those that have potentially harmful physical or psychological problems (they can deny entry if they believe you are suicidal), you can be barred for political reasons (the US reserves the right to deny avowed members of Nazi party or ideology entry), and the US can and will deny entry if they believe the traveler will become dependent or is entering to obtain need-based government assistance.

 

[Maze1125]

I will, however, not have either denied access to a country unless there is evidence of a premeditated crime, because that's what most western societies have agreed upon as a rational and reasonable way of life.

Right. Exactly. Which is why he was denied.
There is blatant evidence of him committing acts which are crimes in the UK.

Done.
By your very own standard he deserved to be denied.

Please link the offending material and a link to the law he's hypothetically broken in the UK.

Why? He's already been banned for it and all that will happen is that you'll try and debate the semantics of if the actions were a crime in the UK.

Your opinion on that is irrelevant. The UK authorities deemed it to be the case.

Crimes comitted in other countries (whether they are legal there or not) are irrelevant,

No, they really aren't.

unless someone can prove he intends to do the same in the country he is visiting.

And, again, the UK authorities deem that they had enough proof of that.

 

[EternallyBored]

I will, however, not have either denied access to a country unless there is evidence of a premeditated crime, because that's what most western societies have agreed upon as a rational and reasonable way of life.

Right. Exactly. Which is why he was denied.
There is blatant evidence of him committing acts which are crimes in the UK.

Done.
By your very own standard he deserved to be denied.

Please link the offending material and a link to the law he's hypothetically broken in the UK.

He doesn't need to break a law in the UK to be denied entry into the country, I can't think of a single country on the planet that will only bar entry if a crime has been committed there first. That is not how the law works, the law is more than just "things that are illegal", the law also gives power and scope for agencies to accomplish their directives.

In this case I don't blame Maze 1125 for blowing you off, both the relevant law and the incriminating videos and posts have been posted on this thread, for god's sake, the article Zeconte posted is quoted on this very page, scroll up a bit and look at it, it contains the picture of him choking a japanese woman, the video of him talking about being able to get away with harassing women in Japan, as well as talking about his hashtag #chokinggirlsaroundtheworld which accompanied him with pictures of propositioning girls while they were in chokeholds. He has since taken a number of these videos and pictures down since it actually is largely the evidence being used to justify his denied entry, as well as having his visa revoked while he was in Australia

The law in the UK explicitly gives them the power to bar people entry if they are believed to be a potential threat or nuisance to public safety and order, the law has been linked multiple times in this thread, just because you may not like it doesn't mean that the relevant laws don't exist for every country he has been barred from entering so far, including Japan.

It's not by my definition however. It's the intent of commiting a crime in the country he is going to visit. Crimes comitted in other countries (whether they are legal there or not) are irrelevant, unless someone can prove he intends to do the same in the country he is visiting.

See, here's the problem right here, you are wrong about it being irrelevant: the US, Japan, UK, Australia, and Canada all have laws that allow a non-citizen to be barred entry, or even to have their visa revoked and kicked out based on crimes they commited in another country.

You have a very incorrect idea of how border control laws work, entering a country is not a basic human right, and any country can set their own laws and standards for who they let enter their borders, and those laws, even in the West, are a lot more complex than just criminality.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Either we're free or we set rules for what is acceptable and what is not.

This is an odd thing to form a moral grandstand upon. What exactly do you think laws are?

Did you read the above sentence and immediately think of drawing comparisons to 1984? If you are, please don't...

thought policing

Ah.

I severely question the capability of "Lynne Featherstone, minister of state at the Home Office", who "has excluded more foreign nationals on the grounds of unacceptable behaviour than any before her."

So in other words the post above consists of

"mah feels"

I know my biases and I know that I am reaction in a harsh tone because it's a topic that infuriates me.
Supporting this ban, especially by having signed the petition, is a demonstration of bandwagon mentality, a cheap support of something "good" that resonates with popular morality and societal issues.
From the justification I've seen so far, it is not grounded in reason, hence it's a product of weak will and the inability to judge a story for yourself.

Here's your own homework; Try to acknowledge the bias towards this man and see how much of it is backed up by fact or evidence, rather than an approximation of his character and what he does.

I'm not interested in the result or being right on this subject. I'm interested in seeing people make an effort to think for themselves and not simply join in because it seems just, politically correct or "okay in this instance" from what others tell you.

Nor am I interested in justification of emotions.
My stance on that is that emotions are a personal problem only relevant to others if they directly affect your life in a measurable way, so deemed by a professional. Anything less than that is trivial and not subject to my personal interest.
- To anyone who takes offense at that, deal with it.

Did you read the rest of the thread? The UK government reviewed videos he has since removed.

You've glanced over what I wrote

You've glanced over this thread.

When I say I am disgusted, it is because I see people acting like members of a prehistorical tribe unable to think beyond their own borders and out for figurative blood. It's a witch hunt.
As an example, I am wholeheartedly against present feminism and I believe it is akin to dictatorial zealotry that we see in people recruiting "holy warriors" for a cause. I will, however, not have either denied access to a country unless there is evidence of a premeditated crime, because that's what most western societies have agreed upon as a rational and reasonable way of life.

For me, this is an example of knee-jerk reactions of primitives versus critical thinking worthy of being an adult human being that has grown up in a civilized society.
Feelings versus facts.
Emotion versus rationality.

How is the above not...

"mah feels"

Yes thank you, Smilomaniac.

To some degree, letter of the law versus the intent of the law.

The law you didn't look up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348116/GGFR_Sec2v18_0_EXT.pdf

From page 3 of the above; Things they must take into consideration before granting a visa
"non conductiveness, adverse character, conduct or associations (criminal history, deportation order, travel ban, exclusion, non-conductive to public good, a threat to national security"

Considering
1) The videos he recorded were used in his case and
2) he had already been prevented from going to Australia, it's more than sufficient grounds.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that I do not understand why this has happened.

Your posts don't help.

It is an increasingly common occurance that public outrage over small things lead to rushed results. The difference between party "A" and "B", is that there is a difference of value and that's why the discussion is mismatched.
I can only say that the casual outrage is not worth setting an unjustifiable precedent (slippery-slope hardly applicable considering what else we've seen - Large examples being #GamerGate and especially #shirtstorm).

I think it's absolutely disgusting that so many people are in favor of denying people entry outside the law, based on difference of opinion. By that logic, anyone could be banned or denied entry.
The difference between people who support this and people denying fugitives or immigrants, is that one pretends it's for a good cause and uses women in general as shields.

This is what I think, but considering how weak willed and ignorant people have shown themselves in the face of any disagreement, it comes as no surprise.

It's not by my definition however. It's the intent of commiting a crime in the country he is going to visit. Crimes comitted in other countries (whether they are legal there or not) are irrelevant, unless someone can prove he intends to do the same in the country he is visiting.

Odd that apparently one cannot take into account the history of an applicant. The process of getting a visa digs deep into your past, as shown with the quote from their page stating their criteria for visas.

It's just more moral grandstanding. Or in other words...

"mah feels"

 

[Maze1125]

This is mob rule.

No it isn't.
This is state rule.

He factually committed crimes in other countries (committing a crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime) and UK law allows him to be banned from that.

Your ignorance of the law and extreme "opinions" don't change that.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

This would be IS clever,

I've hit a soft nerve of some people it seems, so I'm bundling my reply.

More the hypocrisy of the "mah feels" bit. If you hadn't typed that I wouldn't have bothered.

Considering that you have failed to provide any information backing up your claims, I'll explain it briefly:

He has never been convicted of anything. If he had, he had also served his time which would be a factor as well, hence why I think a past crime is irrelevant, since that's what you were replying to.

We're operating under the assumption you read the articles in the OP, saw the two videos posted throughout the thread (that the man himself has removed from his channel) and the links provided by various people explaining UK laws and how banning him is certainly not outside the law as you asserted.

Past crimes aren't irrelevant. Countries take criminal history into account before permitting visas. Why wouldn't they?

As for him not being convicted of a crime he committed in Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Blanc#Visas_revoked_or_denied_in_Australia.2C_the_United_Kingdom.2C_and_Singapore
This section mentions that the laws he has broken requires a witness to give testimony. His program targets those who won't put up a fight.

In other words, this ban happened due to a public outrage and a single official took it at face value and made a rushed decision to appease those voices.

This is mob rule.

As for the actual law it's being used in response to the outrage, not the "public good".

As already established, the law was used exactly as intended. The person in charge who denied his visa didn't single him out. As you mentioned, she has denied more visas on these grounds than anyone before her (according to the opinion of an official). The UK is not the only country to do this either. Australia, Brazil, Canada, South Korea and Singapore have all stated he is not welcome.

I don't see any evidence that this man poses a credible threat to society,

Videos of him are in this thread.

but I do see a lot of people coming to the defense of women because it's an easy cause to wear on your sleeve.

You're going for the "Only White Knights care" angle, eh? It is quite jarring that preventing sexual assault and the explicit condoning thereof is now considered deplorable.

EDIT
Are you aware that it was a woman who banned him after she was made aware by another woman? Are you aware it all started when a woman started an awareness campaign against him headed by an organization that stands for violence against women that is headed by women?

if it weren't for the fact that my feelings are not justifying my opinion, nor my actions, unlike the some 150k people signing the petition.

Naturally.

I also redirect you to the first reply in this post.

I direct you to the videos presented in this thread.

 

[Maze1125]

but we can't start acting outside the law,

No-one acted outside the law. What occurred is EXACTLY UK law.
No-one "bent over backwards" or anything. This is the law and it was followed.

Your refusal to admit that doesn't stop you from being wrong. Maybe you should just admit that you don't know a fucking thing about UK law.

 

[Maze1125]

but we can't start acting outside the law,

No-one acted outside the law. What occurred is EXACTLY UK law.
No-one "bent over backwards" or anything. This is the law and it was followed.

Your refusal to admit that doesn't stop you from being wrong. Maybe you should just admit that you don't know a fucking thing about UK law.

You seem to have missed the point and instead of understanding what I'm saying, are intent on somehow winning this discussion, as if there's any point to it apart from internet epeen.

How about you admit to that?

Lol, yeah, I think you made any point that needs to be made pretty well with that comment just there...