Ship of Fools: Todd Bentley banned from the UK

Thread: Todd Bentley banned from the UK - Yay! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023386

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

He's big, he's back, he's....banned!

Finally, a government decision on religion that makes sense [Two face]

[ 22. August 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Stick Monitor ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think it's unfortunate all round.

It's unfortunate that churches did not have the sense to refrain from inviting him in the first place.

I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with governments excluding visitors on the grounds of their religious beliefs, however lunatic they may be.

And Bentley is already playing the victim card to the full.

Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :

quote:
In clips, he is heard telling an audience: "And the Holy Spirit spoke to me, the gift of faith came on me. He said, 'kick her in the face with your biker boot'. I inched closer and I went like this – bam! And just as my boot made contact with her nose, she fell under the power of God."

[*Wipes away tears]

I laughed so hard when I read this - must be the gift of Holy Spirit too.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

God bless the Home Office!

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's unfortunate all round.

I'm also not sure I'm comfortable with governments excluding visitors on the grounds of their religious beliefs, however lunatic they may be.

I know what you mean, given recent illiberal tendencies in British society. However, it would be interesting to know who grassed him up - it may be that HMG took good advice from a discerning church leader of some sort.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Yeah despite being glad he's not coming here I'm concerned if the ban is based on his belief. Where do you draw the line? I'd be more happy if the ban was explicitly to stop him hitting and kicking people here. Which I guess it pretty much was.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

I totally agree that he's an idiot: anyone who can make a comment like 'We know and believe that the UK has a great destiny', has proved it in one. But the whole point of a liberal society is that we must allow the free exchange of ideas; there must be a VERY good reason for doing otherwise; surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'. I don't think there is anything like this justification for this restriction; instead we are seeing the anti-democratic tendencies of any government being demonstrated. Not impressed.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'm sure there's some background information we'll never here (it's a government decision after all) but I tend to agree with George Spigot: maybe we should have told Todd Bentley "Sure, come over, but please take some advice regarding our violence against the person legislation".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

We have precedents for banning lunatics associated with other religions who, say, advocate strapping a bomb to your chest and walking into a crowded space as a sure fire way to Paradise. What makes the lunatics associated with our faith any more welcome than the lunatics associated with others?

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I'm entirely happy to exclude someone who intends to assault people in the name of religion. After all, if kicking someone in the face (whether it was God's idea or not) isn't assault, what is it?

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'.

You and George Spigot together have a really good point there. Isn't the kicking of a woman in the face an assault? That and the list of other violent offences well documented elsewhere, e.g. punching a terminal-pancreatic-cancer patient in the gut which made him black out? That and fraudulent claims of healing and resurrections which kept the dollars rolling in?

Yes, it's much more likely someone in Whitehall rolled his/her eyes at the prospect of a visit from yet another Christian loon but there might be some intelligence in it.

[ 22. August 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: Stick Monitor ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The thing is, we don't really know on what grounds he was banned. The Telegraph focuses on the perceived assaults, but we have no idea whether the Home Office did.

To answer Alan's point, I don't think he's advocating terrorism.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I too am intrigued as to exactly why he's been banned - it was a bit of a surprise to hear about it.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I'd be interested to know which church/denomination he belongs to. ...Wait, no, let me guess... it wouldn't be "Todd Bentley Ministries" by any chance, would it?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Ah, it seems the local MP for Croydon, his first planned port of call, has something to do with it (story).

Scanning Guardian and Huffington Post articles suggests (but again does not prove) that the grounds were "protecting vulnerable people".

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

Most of the media coverage is focused on his criminal and violent past as the reason for the ban. It looks like the Labour MP for Croydon (where the tour was meant to start), Malcolm Wicks, raised the objection in a personal letter to the Home Secretary.

This from the organisers' website:

quote:
We are terribly disappointed and sorry to tell you all that the Home Office has refused entry to the UK to Todd Bentley, citing the reason being his former criminal conviction and his unorthodox method of ministering. The Home Secretary was responsible for the final decision, and tells us that the decision cannot be appealed.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But the whole point of a liberal society is that we must allow the free exchange of ideas; there must be a VERY good reason for doing otherwise; surely the test should be 'Would his behaviour in the past constitute an offence under British law'.

I don't think permitting him to pursue a "ministry" that consists of punching and kicking people could fairly be described as an "exchange of ideas". YMMV.

As for whether his past behaviour would constitute an offence - that rather depends on your position on the ability to consent to assault, and your interpretation of the nature of any consent given by his victims. I'm cautious about answering that one, but in various ways, there's a clear difference between Bentley and (for example) a boxer.

Frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. There's no danger of lunatic religious beliefs being excluded as long as Benny Hinn and Ken Ham are regular visitors to these shores, so I can't get worked up about a guy being turned away because he wants to come here and hit sick people.

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

Of course, he may just decide to circumvent UK Immigration controls again. [Roll Eyes]

[ 22. August 2012, 12:59: Message edited by: Stick Monitor ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Frankly, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. There's no danger of lunatic religious beliefs being excluded as long as Benny Hinn and Ken Ham are regular visitors to these shores, so I can't get worked up about a guy being turned away because he wants to come here and hit sick people.

Finally we agree on something Gumby me ol' mucker! [Smile]

I don't know much about Ken Ham, but Benny Hinn is well dodgy!

(don't mention the war.. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it...)

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

Just noticed that he was due to arrive the day after the Paralympics starts. That probably had something to do with it too.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

I do find it amusing. I'm not a fan of Todd Bentley, I think he's a shyster, though one who genuinely believes he is someone with the power of the Holy Spirit inside him, rather than, as anyone else would say, a sociopath.

However, despite being a loon, AFAIK he's only once kicked someone in the face, and we have only his word for it, no one has come forward to tell their story of being kicked in the face by him. He said that one time in his early ministry he did this, as an exceptional act of faith despite being aware it was a crazy thing to do at the time. The only recent violent thing he did that there's any evidence for (as far as I've read - I may of course be wrong) is knee a cancer guy in the stomach - and the cancer guy said he felt better afterwards so it may not have been a particularly powerful blow - just part of his stage act.

So he may have been violent or pretended to be violent once or twice on stage, but the media's love of presenting him as though he does this as a regular feature of his ministry is very far from the truth.

Admittedly its his own fault for boasting about it on talk shows, however.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Finally we agree on something Gumby me ol' mucker!

Even a stopped clock is right occasionally. [Big Grin]

I'll leave the question of which of us is the stopped clock as an exercise for the reader. [Paranoid]

You'd like Ken Ham. He's full of fascinating gems, some of which go well beyond the usual creationist schtick. There's a brilliant bit on his AiG website where a 10yo asks him how he reconciles his belief about the age of the universe with the millions of years the light's had to travel to get here from distant stars.

His answer was that this poor, confused boy had got muddled up by fancy science talk:

quote:
When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away!

Um, Okay.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I'm entirely happy to exclude someone who intends to assault people in the name of religion. After all, if kicking someone in the face (whether it was God's idea or not) isn't assault, what is it?

Prizefighting? Martial arts?

I mean, under some circumstances you can give another person permission to hit you. It seems to me that if you seek the ministry of Todd Bentley, knowing his reputation, you have effectively done exactly that.

I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?

I presume there may be other reasons from his past why they might refuse him entry.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?

I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.

I don't think Todd Bentley Ministries has a House of Bishops.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?

Is this the same Mark Betts who, over on two other threads, is defending the right of the Russian government to lock people up for years for offensive religious speech?

Have you had a sudden conversion experience and turned in to a libertarian?

[Eek!]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of association accordingly?

Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?

Or has this been moderated?

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It seems to me that if you seek the ministry of Todd Bentley, knowing his reputation, you have effectively done exactly that.

Fair point wrt the informed, Todd fanbois. But what about the vulnerable sick who consult such snake-oil salesmen in dark desperation? Should we not protect them somehow, albeit imperfectly? It would be nice to think, as daronmedway posits, that May consulted the state church for pastoral guidance. I admit she probably didn't. In addition, the CofE (and other churches) should be doing a better job, day-to-day, of walking alongside the sick and suffering, to steer them away from Charlatans like Bentley.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?

Or has this been moderated?

Indeed. Although spent convictions cannot I believe be used to refuse someone entry to the UK I am unsure about sexual offences. This combined with the general aura of Todd's Ministry probably rang alarm bells.

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

This happens on a fairly regular basis (with debate here as well), but ultimately seems to amount to their physical presence being banned, but you can still access their speech, words, etc, on YouTube or elsewhere on the internet, British citizens are certainly not banned from going to Florida to visit him in the hopes of being healed, and so on. Which frankly is a step up from the days when Gerry Adams (admittedly, a UK citizen) could not have his voice legally broadcast in the UK.

The list of people banned from the UK doesn't seem to be on primarily on belief though - it is through action. Sometimes, those two overlap. But if your actions include inciting hatred against people (which would be in contravention of English laws) like Michael Savage, or violent actions like "kill or be killed" martial arts teacher Tim Larkin, then why should the government allow such people to come here? Especialy when they can still address the Oxford Union by video link (as has happened).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stick Monitor:
In addition, the CofE (and other churches) should be doing a better job, day-to-day, of walking alongside the sick and suffering, to steer them away from Charlatans like Bentley.

Hear! Hear!

I'm sure many in the 'mainstream' churches carry out a healing ministry, in a calm, modest but regrettably almost anonymous way. Such an approach is preferable, IMO, but it leaves the field open to those who target the sick and disabled.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?

I'm far more bothered about those who come here fleeing persecution, famine, war and poverty and who are refused access than I am about religious nutcases. As others have pointed out, there is still a good selection of people with strange ideas being allowed in and that's how it should be. If we exclude those who appear to be going actively to harm people, I think that's reasonable.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

He has a conviction for a sex attack on a 7 year old child.

And then there are these rather succinctly put objections.

quote:
Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester who now runs a church education charity, said: ‘I think the Home Secretary should make enquiries and see if there is any threat to public order. If the police have any indication that violence will be used against people who may be ill or vulnerable, it will be for her to decide if police should attend.’

Peter May, a prominent Christian GP who served for 25 years on the Church of England’s ruling General Synod, and has investigated spurious faith healers for more than 20 years, said: ‘I’m concerned by Todd Bentley’s methods because a physical injury on any sick person could be very serious.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Alogon, I'd accept this criticism from some directions, but doesn't your country refuse entry to anyone with the most minor conviction for use of cannabis, however young they were and however long ago?

I didn't know that, but it's terrible. If prejudice against pot smoking continues to subside, it will have to go into abeyance or, better yet, be repealed outright.

I don't hesitate to criticize my country or its government when I see problems. Do we hear anyone on the Ship from either side of the pond defending this law? No? Good. Now back to the issue at hand.

There may be other reasons to justify Bentley's banning, but as long as they remain unstated, we have no way to discuss them. Furthermore, the main question this would raise is of ends and means. If such a silly but convenient means to exclude someone as prior marijuana use is available, I don't imagine that it is invoked consistently. It is invoked when a governmental official has another reason to exclude a foreigner, but marijuana will the stated pretext. And maybe the real reason is some sense of the public good in the authorities' view, but they are not yet so arrogant as to justify themselves thus.

In this case, the stated pretext is "public good." My argument is that this is dangerously vague and insultingly paternalistic even as a pretext, let alone the real reason. How much difference does it make?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
In this case, the stated pretext is "public good." My argument is that this is dangerously vague and insultingly paternalistic even as a pretext, let alone the real reason. How much difference does it make?

The HO rarely gives a more detailed reason as to why someone might have been barred from the country.

You can argue that this shouldn't be the case, but that's a somewhat different topic.

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Although spent convictions cannot I believe be used to refuse someone entry to the UK I am unsure about sexual offences.

Checked the guidance. Sex offences are not treated differently, it all goes on length of sentence. For anyone who would have served >30 months for the offence in the UK then the conviction is never considered spent. I reckon that would exclude TB outright and permanently.

However the phrase 'not conducive to the public good' seems to be the main phrase being bandied about, which is a different reason for refusal.

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'd be interested to know if the Home Office consulted anyone in the House of Bishops or other denominational representatives before making its final decision.
I don't think Todd Bentley Ministries has a House of Bishops.

actually, Bentley's "apostolic" oversight comes from Bill Jonson of Bethel. But that isn't my point. I was wondering if the Home Office in the UK is in the habit of consulting UK church leaders when it is considering whether to ban someone who purports to be a Christian evangelist/healer.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I was wondering if the Home Office in the UK is in the habit of consulting UK church leaders when it is considering whether to ban someone who purports to be a Christian evangelist/healer.

If the reason for their being barred from the UK was on the basis of a (possible) public order offence, I can see that they may consult members of the other community. If it was a criminal sanction of some kind I'd imagine they wouldn't.

Given the basis for being barred is a legal condition of some kind, I'm not sure why they should consult religious leaders acting in that capacity.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm very wary about banning anyone like this, even though they might be fruit-cakes. I'm not sure that Bentley actually DID kick an old-lady in the face - he just claims to have done. I don't believe a word the guy says.

The whole thing about thumping or hitting people and them being miraculously healed as a result - contrary to expectations - is an old Pentecostal canard. Similar stories were told of Smith Wigglesworth, the Bradford plumber and early Pentecostal pioneer, the subject of early Pentecostal hagiographies which still circulate in the kind of circles Todd Bentley moves in.

So, what he was saying in effect was, 'Look folks, one greater - or at least as great as - Smith Wigglesworth is here ...'

The logic goes like this ...

God tells him to do something very, very silly and downright dangerous - ie. kick an old lady in the face. He protests at first, 'Surely not, Lord!' But, in obedience to the divine command he does so and, lo and behold, instead of the old lady being injured as one might expect she has been miraculously and gloriously healed ... hallelujah! Praise the Lord! All glory be to God ... etc. etc. yadda yadda yadda ...

The story probably doesn't have any basis in fact whatsover. He's just telling it to capitalise on similar stories about early Pentecostal elder-statesmen in order to draw on a received tradition ... and claim himself as an inheritor of that tradtion, that 'anointing.'

It is completely bogus, it is completely bollocks.

It is documented that Bentley (Bent Toddley as one Shipmate memorably dubbed him) punched a guy with cancer in the stomach - but the guy he punched claimed that this made him feel a lot better. Probably the thump in the stomach took his mind off his cancer temporarily ...

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
There may be other reasons to justify Bentley's banning, but as long as they remain unstated, we have no way to discuss them.

In this case, the stated pretext is "public good."

As far as I can see on the Home Office's website there are no reasons given, in fact there is no statement to the effect that he has been banned. Indeed if you put "Todd Bentley" into the search engine nothing comes up at all. Therefore we have no basis on which to discuss anything to do with this "case" apart from pure speculation.

[ 22. August 2012, 23:12: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

The expression 'non conducive to the public good' is used to cover all sorts of things mainly covering public policy, public security and public health (and yes I did almost type pubic health there). I understand it's most commonly used to stop people with criminal convictions or those actively involved in crime from entering the UK.

Posted by Stick Monitor (# 17253) on :

quote:
As far as I can see on the Home Office's website there are no reasons given, in fact there is no statement to the effect that he has been banned. Indeed if you put "Todd Bentley" into the search engine nothing comes up at all. Therefore we have no basis on which to discuss anything to do with this "case" apart from pure speculation.

Such an announcement would never be put on a govt website because it is a matter for a private individual.

To be fair, if you have another careful look at the various links I provided above you will see the thread is not pure speculation:

- the guidance docs issued by the Home Office
- a statement by the tour organisers that Todd had been told specifically (as required by law) that his previous convictions and the nature of his ministry were the issues that got him banned etc

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

OK I see that. Although the guidance documents by their very nature cannot explain to us why any individual exclusion took place. So we are left with the statement on Todd Bentley's own website which may be selective and is certainly defensive. For this thread it is still primarily speculation when it comes to the Home Office's reasoning and any broader implications.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

You don't think a sexual offense conviction against a 7 year old child would be likely to be relevant then ?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You don't think a sexual offense conviction against a 7 year old child would be likely to be relevant then ?

Maybe if it's true.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

I think it's blindingly obvious that we have a process here where the executive can make decisions with no clarity in their reasoning, or opportunity to challenge their evidence. These are exactly the symptoms of dictatorial behaviour that needs to be resisted. Consider the possibility of a less high profile person whose name is the same as a felon: that individual under the present system would have no opportunity to challenge the incorrect evidence that led to the exclusion. This is an exercise of 'prerogative power' that needs to be ended.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I believe it is a matter of record, that he does not dispute.

It is relevant particularly to his ministry because in the UK a convicted sex offender would not be legally permitted to work with children or vulnerable adults - and people with terminal illness would be considered vulnerable. In other words he would not pass an enhanced CRB check for any position that required one - and in most churches that would include people in leadership positions.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I believe it is a matter of record, that he does not dispute.

It is relevant particularly to his ministry because in the UK a convicted sex offender would not be legally permitted to work with children or vulnerable adults - and people with terminal illness would be considered vulnerable. In other words he would not pass an enhanced CRB check for any position that required one - and in most churches that would include people in leadership positions.

No - it's an offence which the judiciary of Canada chose to seal. It is therefore not for the executive to use that as the basis for their decision. Either we are countries under the rule of law, or we aren't.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - it's an offence which the judiciary of Canada chose to seal. It is therefore not for the executive to use that as the basis for their decision. Either we are countries under the rule of law, or we aren't.

The UK is not bound by any ruling of the Canadian judiciary in this matter. Todd Bentley has been banned under UK law and safeguarding guidelines. Apart from his conviction for rape and his admitted use of violence there's the question of what he's claiming, and selling, with his 'supernatural ministry'. We have laws against fraud too.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - it's an offence which the judiciary of Canada chose to seal. It is therefore not for the executive to use that as the basis for their decision. Either we are countries under the rule of law, or we aren't.
The UK is not bound by any ruling of the Canadian judiciary in this matter. Todd Bentley has been banned under UK law and safeguarding guidelines. Apart from his conviction for rape and his admitted use of violence there's the question of what he's claiming, and selling, with his 'supernatural ministry'. We have laws against fraud too.

Excuse me - how did the word 'rape' crawl into this conversation? I repeat - the judge in the case chose to seal it - therefore they were not too concerned about it.

There is no criminal case for fraud made against him - therefore you are finding him guilty without any due process.

These are both the actions of a dictatorial system, not those of one offering justice. EVERYONE has a right to equal treatment by the law: actually the core claim 'entry to the UK is a privilege, not a right is dubious: why should a citizen of earth be denied access to part of his homeland? It should only be done on very good grounds, which can be challenged in court, not because a populist government minister sees it as a cheap way to gain political kudos.

He's an obnoxious idiot - but that's not ground for excluding him if we are serious about our claims to be a free country.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

It was a serious sexual assault on a 7 year old boy - some reports describe it as rape. Whatever is meant by the Canadian judiciary 'sealing' the conviction I doubt it means that it was considered unimportant.

He has a reputation for verbal and physical violence. He encourages sick and vulnerable people to approach him - he particularly asked for frail people to come to his UK events. I'm glad he's been banned and I hope it sends a message to those in the UK who seek to imitate him.

As for fraud, I'd love to see some of the charlatans on the 'supernatural ministry' circuit prosecuted under the trade descriptions legislation.

[ 23. August 2012, 12:30: Message edited by: justlooking ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I think it's blindingly obvious that we have a process here where the executive can make decisions with no clarity in their reasoning, or opportunity to challenge their evidence. These are exactly the symptoms of dictatorial behaviour that needs to be resisted. Consider the possibility of a less high profile person whose name is the same as a felon: that individual under the present system would have no opportunity to challenge the incorrect evidence that led to the exclusion. This is an exercise of 'prerogative power' that needs to be ended.

Yup, despite Magna Carta and the Mother of Parliaments that is so. Maybe he could ask for a judicial review? As we don't have a written constitution however he would have to fall back on would be the Human Rights Act, but as he isn't here, could it apply?

The same goes for any number of things: the Home Office as a whole is probably less open than GCHQ or MI6, which you would expect to be secretive.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I'm delighted that Bentley was banned. I'm tempted to write to the HO and ask them to ban other pseudo-Christian wackos as well; Bill Johnson ought to be next on the list.

K.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm delighted that Bentley was banned. I'm tempted to write to the HO and ask them to ban other pseudo-Christian wackos as well; Bill Johnson ought to be next on the list.

K.

As long as you have no problems with banning Catherine Sciori and Gene Robinson. Where do you stop? Are we a liberal country or do we need to be protected by nanny?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
why should a citizen of earth be denied access to part of his homeland?

I'm sorry, but that is just a completely ridiculous remark. You will not find 'citizenry of earth' accepted anywhere on this here planet as a concept. You are a citizen of a country. Your ability to go to any other country is conditional. This is what passports and visas are for. There has NEVER been any kind of 'right' of entry into other countries, ever. Just because the vast majority of people are allowed in, don't kid yourself that it's somehow become a right to visit 'a part of your homeland'!!

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
why should a citizen of earth be denied access to part of his homeland?
I'm sorry, but that is just a completely ridiculous remark. You will not find 'citizenry of earth' accepted anywhere on this here planet as a concept. You are a citizen of a country. Your ability to go to any other country is conditional. This is what passports and visas are for. There has NEVER been any kind of 'right' of entry into other countries, ever. Just because the vast majority of people are allowed in, don't kid yourself that it's somehow become a right to visit 'a part of your homeland'!!

Absolutely correct. Each country determines who has access and who doesn't. I do know a criminal conviction or even having used any kind of speech that might incite violence against the U.S. or it's citizens is enough to get you barred from the U.S.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm delighted that Bentley was banned. I'm tempted to write to the HO and ask them to ban other pseudo-Christian wackos as well; Bill Johnson ought to be next on the list.

K.
As long as you have no problems with banning Catherine Sciori and Gene Robinson. Where do you stop? Are we a liberal country or do we need to be protected by nanny?

Wow, Katherine Sciori and Gene Robinson punch little old ladies in the face and boast about it on the internet, too?! Gosh, my opinion of them has gone right down.

Seriously, I'm sure GB could've survived the onslaught of Todd Bentley's ministry. No doubt a lot of credulous people would have been 'encouraged' by it and maybe some copy-cat ministries would have sprung up as a result, causing trouble and pain and division. And perhaps those who lobbied for his admission to the country would've been on hand to pick up the pieces? But he's already got a bucket-load of great publicity as the persecuted soldier of Christ out of this, so I doubt he's complaining much. It could hardly have gone better in fact; great PR, all the effects of his having been over here, and all without the cost of a single cent!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I do know a criminal conviction or even having used any kind of speech that might incite violence against the U.S. or it's citizens is enough to get you barred from the U.S.

Also, for a long time, having HIV. Though I believe they recently changed that.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I do know a criminal conviction or even having used any kind of speech that might incite violence against the U.S. or it's citizens is enough to get you barred from the U.S.
Also, for a long time, having HIV. Though I believe they recently changed that.

Yup, It was removed.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I don't know this guy, and certainly wouldn't like to be punched or kicked in the face!!! But I'm presuming that he doesn't chase strangers down the street; he deals with people who have freely chosen to associate with him. Sadism and masochism aren't against the law, as far as I'm aware, so he shouldn't have been kept out of the country on these grounds.

If he has actual convictions for attacking people who then took him to court, that's another matter.

I shouldn't think he's a threat to public order. Not in the UK. He offers a very niche form of ministry, one might say, and the vast majority of British people, Christians or otherwise, have never heard of him.

It also occurs to me that in the UK, with access to the NHS, anyone who visits 'healers' like this has probably already tried several other options. They're not placing all their hopes in this one person. If they're at death's door, however, it's rather harsh of us to say that they should just accept their fate, and not look for help from unorthodox sources. It's human nature to be hopeful.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
why should a citizen of earth be denied access to part of his homeland?

I look forward to your advocacy for implementing a similar sentiment in UK immigration policy regarding economic migrants.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sadism and masochism aren't against the law, as far as I'm aware

Actually they are. That's probably an entire separate topic, but there was a case in the 1990s.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sadism and masochism aren't against the law, as far as I'm aware
Actually they are. That's probably an entire separate topic, but there was a case in the 1990s.

Ah. Well, the trick must be to keep it a secret!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes. Or at least to avoid stumbling into police attention for completely unrelated reasons, which is pretty much what happened.

[/tangent]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think there are also legal issues regarding the vulnerability of the apparently consenting party.

If the consenting party is a like-minded kinky adult, that's one thing, but if they are a terminally ill patient, desperate for hope, then saying that they consented to being kicked or punched isn't enough to avoid the attention of the law.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there are also legal issues regarding the vulnerability of the apparently consenting party.

If the consenting party is a like-minded kinky adult, that's one thing, but if they are a terminally ill patient, desperate for hope, then saying that they consented to being kicked or punched isn't enough to avoid the attention of the law.

So are you saying that the terminally ill should just accept their fate quietly? Why? Shouldn't they have the same rights as anyone else to self-determination?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Not really. Just that they should be protected from con men who want to punch them in the stomach and take money off them.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Not really. Just that they should be protected from con men who want to punch them in the stomach and take money off them.

I think the best we can do is tell them that we think these people are con men. But terminally ill people should still be allowed to make up their own minds.

I don't know how much this man charges for his 'services'. Would it make any difference if he didn't charge? The marabouts who advertise at the back of newspapers charge, but they seem to get away with it.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think that particularly where treatment of illness is concerned, regulation of claims and services is reasonable. We don't allow people to do do-it-yourself operations based on crack-pot theories, and content ourselves with trying to warn their hapless victims that they are dangerous con-artists.

Likewise we don't allow anyone to sell untested medicines as long as the public are informed that they might be toxic.

I had a terminally ill relative some time ago who was completely hood-winked by a "healer" who unfortunately was based in another country. Anyone who tried to explain to her that the healer was a charlatan simply became an obstacle to her recovery in her mind. People get desperate, and when they get desperate they become vulnerable.

[ETA and no, in this case I don't think it matters if he charges or not]

[ 28. August 2012, 14:47: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

mdijon

So, not only would you ban this man from coming here, you would prefer that any claim of faith healing be treated as a criminal offence? Where would you draw the line? To be workable, there would have to be clear guidelines as to what counted as faith healing, and some healers would probably look for a loophole so that they could continue to offer a service that people wanted.

I imagine that this sort of thing is increasingly rare in the Western world. But I doubt that it will die out completely.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Not at all. I would want faith healing that involves either a) large sums of money or b) being punched in the stomach to be illegal.

Good old fashioned prayer for healing without some other twist is perfectly fine by me (and I do it myself sometimes).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

mdijon

Maybe, instead of banning it, it could be like cigarettes: anyone who claimed to be a faith healer would need to put a big disclaimer in their advert: MAY LEAD TO DISAPPOINTMENT, or something similar.

As for punching people in the face in order to heal them, do you feel that this risks becoming a dangerous trend without some sort of state control? I can't see it catching on in a big way, but I could be wrong. It might be appealing to a certain kind of hard man who wants a more virile way of tackling his serious physical problems (healing via karate chops?) but I don't imagine that your average little old English lady with cancer would find it very dignified.

[ 28. August 2012, 15:20: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It isn't just whether it becomes a trend or not, one individual with cancer, believing that this man of God is their best hope of healing, and being punched in the face for it is worth protecting.

Disclaimers are sufficient protection for many, but not sufficient at a certain point of harm with certain vulnerable groups. You can't do advertise unqualified major surgery with a suitable disclaimer, for instance.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

He would likely to cause offence and a breach of the peace I expect?

He is a highly controversial figure and he courted controversy by leaving his wife and children for a female intern. He lay low for a while but now he is back.

I believe he did come to this country several times previously?

I suspect he ''means well'', but my concern is mainly the poor unfortunates who don't get healed and have to struggle with doubt about their lack of healing. This is an all or nothing guy who raised eyebrows when he kicked, hit and pushed people over in Florida.

Somehow it seems almost antithetical to the true gospel of Jesus and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Saul

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It isn't just whether it becomes a trend or not, one individual with cancer, believing that this man of God is their best hope of healing, and being punched in the face for it is worth protecting.

Disclaimers are sufficient protection for many, but not sufficient at a certain point of harm with certain vulnerable groups. You can't do advertise unqualified major surgery with a suitable disclaimer, for instance.

I understand your concern. But if people are as vulnerable as this, then they should be under the watchful eye of social workers, carers, concerned relatives, etc. People like that shouldn't really be expected to deal with their illness alone.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Relatives and social workers can advise them against parting with sums of money for miracle cures, but can't stop them. As in my experience. Without legal protection, advice is fallible.

[ 28. August 2012, 17:00: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In a supposedly 'Christian country', it would be very odd to ban the very concept of faith healing, I think. Were this to happen in the UK, it might raise a big national debate about the place of Christianity itself in national life. CofE clergymen would be expected to state unequivocally that 'faith healing' was a bad thing, or to condemn Christians of other denominations who believed in it. Many of them would feel uncomfortable about doing so, I imagine. The topic of disesablishment would probably be up for discussion if it seemed that the CofE was unwilling to support the new law, because unlike the gay marriage issue, the CofE would have no get-out clause.

Of course, some would say that all this discussion would be a good thing.

I think there would also be cultural problems, because certain ethnic minority groups are more at ease with the concept of faith healing, and they would not take kindly to having their world view and their religious practices criminalised.

I realise that you're upset about what happened to your relative, but I'm not convinced that your solution would really be a good idea. It's too heavy-handed.

[ 28. August 2012, 18:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it would be very odd to ban the very concept of faith healing

I thought I covered this. I don't want to ban the very concept of faith healing. I want to ban people who want to charge large sums of money for faith healing, and, in this case, people who want to kick people in the face during attempted faith healing.

The concept of faith healing is fine by me.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
it would be very odd to ban the very concept of faith healing
I thought I covered this. I don't want to ban the very concept of faith healing. I want to ban people who want to charge large sums of money for faith healing, and, in this case, people who want to kick people in the face during attempted faith healing.

The concept of faith healing is fine by me.

But several posts ago I asked if it was the money that was the main problem, and you said no. In any case, neither of us knows how much Bentley charges.

As for people being punched in the face for faith healing purposes, I doubt that it happens often enough to require a special law banning it. It's probably covered by assault/GBH laws, so long as the individual concerned presses charges. If a vulnerable person was beaten in this way I imagine that the law would take it extremely seriously.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you disapproved of faith healing in general.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

If he has a conviction for assualting a child then he should NEVER be allowed out of Canada . I have had enough of North Americamn "preachers" with oedd backgrounds going all over the place exceptg where they come from to seek the loat.
As for people with this kin d of comviction well afraid I'd have a no passport order on him. He is a disgrace to Canafa as to the ministry IMHO he brings into disrepute. So well done Home Office

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But several posts ago I asked if it was the money that was the main problem, and you said no.

Ah I see. What I meant was that given he has a record (or claimed record) of punching people, the money isn't the main problem.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If a vulnerable person was beaten in this way I imagine that the law would take it extremely seriously.

Yes, absolutely, and charging large sums of money for faith healing would I hope be covered by laws on fraud.

What prompted my discussion above was the suggestion that consent would have given the healer permission to beat/defraud without breaking the law. I don't think that is the case, because of the vulnerable nature of the participant, and I think that therefore that TB can reasonably be denied entry to the UK.

This doesn't apply to other faith healers who have no intention of defrauding or beating anyone.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0