Back in early May, I did a lot of media work about attempts to impose an ASBO on a boy (coincidentally, represented by my old firm) who liked to wear his trousers around the mid-thigh area, exposing his pants.
I viewed that story like this:
1) he's an idiot
2) but the state shouldn't have anything to do with punishing him
3) the correct response is simply for us to form our own views about him (see (1)).
My take on Luke Angel, the boy who e-mailed the President and called him a Pr*ck and is now banned from entering the USA, is just the same.
Plainly it's a walloping overreaction. What does it really say about the USA that their Commander in Chief is so thin-skinned that a foreigner who insults him gets barred from the country? What does it say about a country when its migration laws are used to dole out punitive punishments for naughty boys?
The correct response would have been to ignore him. But if they simply couldn't hold themselves back, and the remarkable and shocking thing that this young man did simply had to be responded to, they should have said, "he's a bit of an idiot". Because he is. But they shouldn't have banned him from the country, a response normally reserved for those who are likely to commit serious crimes or constitute a grave threat to national security. Because he's neither.
By Alex Deane
And then they wonder why Muslims become radicalised.... Could it by any chance be because of official attitudes like this?
Posted by: Daisey | 14/09/2010 at 10:13 AM
Yes, I have heard of this, and we should all send a message to Obama calling him a prick.
Further, we should tell him not to bother banning us for life as the next Republican will lift the ban and probably invite us to the White House for a special party, all expenses paid!
If I do so, I may lie a little and tell him I am a Britisher who was brought up in a long standing white Kenyan family as he hates those with a poison. I say a little as I was brought up in South Africa, only a few thousand miles south!
Ampers.
Ampers.
Posted by: Andrew Ampers Taylor | 14/09/2010 at 10:14 AM
@Daisey ... I hate officiousness and am as much a victim of it as any Muslim, but I haven't blown anyone up yet or chopped their heads off. Stop making excuses - you pr*ck!
Posted by: Rebel Saint | 14/09/2010 at 10:25 AM
As I pointed out elsewhere, this story is also to be found on Anorak.co.uk (satire site, like the Daily Mash.)
While not conclusive proof that Poe's law is in action here, all the reports I've seen thus far appear to be copy-pastes of each other.
Has anyone in the media actually followed up and printed original copy/follow up?
Posted by: PJH | 14/09/2010 at 10:31 AM
@PJH
It was the lead story in our local free newspaper last week, and subsequently the nationals picked it up:
http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/News/Teen-is-banned-from-USA-over-Obama-hate-email.htm
Posted by: Bedford Council Tax Payer | 14/09/2010 at 10:46 AM
Well, doesn't that show what a pri.. silly person Obama really is?
Posted by: fez | 14/09/2010 at 11:06 AM
"But they shouldn't have banned him from the country, a response normally reserved for those who are likely to commit serious crimes or constitute a grave threat to national security." -
Not by the US it isn't. You are technically barred, and at the very least can be required to obtain a visa through an expensive and intrusive procedure, for having a history of mental illness or for having been arrested (not charged or convicted) for an offence that is held to involve 'moral turpitude' (drugs, gambling, sex or dishonesty - non-political violence is just fine). One acquaintance of mine - a beer-drinking northerner - was placed permanently on the Homeland Security Register for being born in Kabul and having a surname that sounds similar to one of the names of one of the 9/11 bombers.
Posted by: guy herbert | 14/09/2010 at 12:48 PM
If you sourced the entire email we'd all of us be in a position to take a view. Even Luke admits it was more serious than just calling Obama a prick (see article linked by Bedford Council Tax Payer). Claiming the US over-reacted without knowing what they reacted to is, surely, an over-reaction.
Posted by: Glenslade | 14/09/2010 at 01:37 PM
Judging by the Yank's reaction I'm surprised that the FBI/CIA/NSA haven't reserved him a seat on one of those extradition flights with Gary Mckinnon, the hacker, If it was an EU country leader, like Greece's PM, or possibly Mr Rumpuy-Pumpuy he'd be on his way to a euro Jail by now, under one of those nice (not) EU extradition warrants.
Posted by: BillyBloggs | 14/09/2010 at 03:42 PM
Lipstick on a pig.
Posted by: Purlieu | 14/09/2010 at 05:39 PM
Was it the Yank's reaction or that of the Bedfordshire cops who told the lad that he wouldn't be allowed into the US. I suspect the latter. As far as I can gather the lad has had no contact with the American authorties. The only thing the Americans did is tell the plods about the email. Still a bit of an overreaction. The Bedforshire cops overreacted still further (but what do you expect from the police now-a-days) by actually visiting the lad - and then to make themselves look big and powerful told the lad the cock and bull story about him not being allowed into America - ever.
Posted by: SadButMadLad | 14/09/2010 at 06:24 PM
That's funny 'cause my pr*ck is called Obama. Will I be banned from the USA too? ;-)
Posted by: NeverSurrender | 14/09/2010 at 10:07 PM
@Glensdale - fair point.
Anyone seen a copy of the full e-mail online?
Posted by: Alex Deane | 15/09/2010 at 09:05 AM
@Glensdale:
That was my thought too. Without seeing the e-mail, we have no idea what was said. It'd be nice to have confirmation from the U.S. authorities of the ban, too (and the reasons for it).
My feeling is that banning a kid from travelling to the U.S. for sending an e-mail is a bit foolish, however stupid and rude said kid might have been, and whoever he may have seen fit to be rude and stupid too or about.
The most concerning aspect, I thought, was that the police reportedly went to his house to photograph him; how does that work, exactly? I suspect he did commit an offence in the U.K. (since IIRC it's illegal to send messages intended to cause offence over a public telecommunications system, which from the sound of it he probably did), but it sounded to me as if the British police had done that at the request of their American counterparts, and I'm not sure that's right.
Posted by: alastair | 15/09/2010 at 10:54 AM
tolerance?
Posted by: Thedarthplanet | 15/09/2010 at 01:18 PM
What happened to due process here ? The kid is being punished without any form of judicial process at all e.g. magistrate, court, etc.
What century are we in ?
Oh, wait ...
Posted by: Purlieu | 17/09/2010 at 05:48 AM
My wife wants to visit the USA and I don't want to go there ever. I refuse to jump through their hoops to get there. So to save any argument I state publicly that I agree with the lads publicised view of their president. That should do it :)
Posted by: Antiyank | 19/09/2010 at 09:29 AM
Within Chinatown, self seems to forget that self is in USA , seeing that is Chinese characters , hearing is Chinese.
Posted by: chanel j12 watch replica | 16/11/2010 at 06:25 AM