M.I.A rejected

Thought #2: really glad I live close to the Canadian border, should she decided to tour Canada, although doubtful.

Thought #3: despite #1 being a really sucky thing -- if true, M.I.A. was really sucky live, so I wouldn't personally be missing much, hmmm maybe scratch thoughts #2 and #3

Geldof criticizes non-do-gooders

Roger roger do you here me over!!!!
"the U.S immigration wont let me in!!!!!
i was mennu work with timber startin this week, but now im doin a Akon "im locked out they wont let me in" im locked out! they wont let me in! Now Im strictly making my album outside the borders!!!! so il see you all one day, for now ill keep reportin from the sidelines
to my people who walk wiv me in the America, dont forget we got the internet! Spread the word! or come get me!!!!!! ill be in my bird flu lab in china! liming and drinkin tiger beer with my pet turtel. I love everyone for the support, now i need it more. ill stay up spread out else where."

It's like William Carlos Williams crapped out Ali G.

o yeah, that thing.

"meh, the entire MIA catalog is meh", perhaps the denial by the immigration people really went something like that.

your country is turning into a police state slowly but surely...does this bother any of you ???

What?

Otherwise this stinks--MIA's not even a danger to the charts nebermind life and limb.

Of course it does. But whether this story is just a publicity stunt exploiting that trend or not is the matter at hand here.

oh well - i'll head back to NZ if it gets anywhere near USA level of ugliness

While I don't have a problem with M.I.A. necessarily, the idea of rejecting an artist from entering your country because of what their art is about doesn't phase me necessarily. If her lyrics had openly advocated terrorism (do they?) would you take her in? I think it's important to ask how far somebody would allow an artistic message to go before they let that affect their decision. Would you allow an artist who depicts sexual love between grown men and little boys to be put into a position of power over small children or would you rather be non-judgmental about his work?

-- grapple (bondistor...), May 19th, 2006.

I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to Oz vs. NZ vs. the U.S. as far as freedoms. But there really isn't a perfect country.

While I was in Oz and NZ in April, I fell in love with both countries, but reading the news, I was left feeling a bit suspicious. Firstly, hearing about the six month wait for unemployment benefits in New Zealand made me a bit wary, as did the report that the NZ government is recompensating patients who accidentally received Hep C tainted blood from their facilities just a one-off single 5 digit amount of money. Both of these to me just stuck out as grossly insufficient to what I'm used to, given the circumstances. Pros, cons, etc. It's obviously naive to think every country is perfect, of course.

I started my own global political despair thread on ILE, so I'll stop now.

Mind you, not that I know enough about Sri Lankan politics to determine to what extent these guys are justified. (Well, if you can ever call violent rebellion truly "justified".) But, provided that the US has decided to classify the LTTE as a criminal organization, I think refusing the visa of a known LTTE member/the daughter of one of their leaders is fairly obvious and internally consistent with that decision... the fact that she's a musician doesn't enter into it.

She had to cancel getting production work from Timbaland beacuse of not getting in so I don't think it's a stunt.

is she a member of the LTTE? no.

But whether or not she's an official member (a question which admittedly might be hard to answer -- I don't imagine the group keeps open membership rolls), she's definitely on record as sympathizing with them.

i'd like to know more hard facts about this story, it all seems to be quite hazy at the moment.

I also don't think we should be refusing entry to anyone who ever voiced any sympathy with the aims or grievances of a terrorist organization. That's casting the net a little too wide. If someone has materially supported a terrorist organization, fine, but saying something that could be construed as support? We're getting into thought-police territory here.

-- Pessimist (iamnotnamedfre...), May 19th, 2006.

ok, tell that to the good americans who donated funds to the ira.

And for that matter, do we know she hasn't materially supported the LTTE? The mix title might be accurate, it might not... but she has, at the very least, presented herself publicly as a financial supporter of the LTTE, without (AFAIK) a clear disclaimer stating that this isn't actually the case.

I'm not saying she's definitely a member of the LTTE, or that she definitely has ulterior motives in visiting the US. I'm not even saying probably either of these things. But I am saying that, even judging only from things that are common knowledge, there's clearly enough reason to at least justify suspicion. Now, what level of suspicion has to be reached before you decide it's better to be safe than sorry is another question entirely.

And concerning the IRA, I think the LTTE's actions go a good bit beyond anything the IRA -- especially the mainstream IRA -- has ever done.

also: hello?

motive = papa was a rolling stone
means = uhhhh

I don't dispute that there are some reasons why immigration officials would be suspicious - which is why I don't think this is a publicity stunt. She is known to be the daughter of a prominent member of a terrorist organization. She has traveled to Sri Lanka. She has made use of imagery of the organization in her music and packaging. If the Homeland Security people weren't suspicious, they'd be negligent. However, I don't think the suspicion justifies keeping her out of the country.

motive plus means to do...what, exactly?!

"Mainstream IRA"

I just don't get why she's being denied entry now, considering that she's been here before and hasn't, y'know, flown a plane into a building.

I don't trust the US government's judgment in this area. Since 9/11, rebel violence gets painted with the broad brush of terrorism, without question of any other factors (e.g. does a group attack primarily civilian or military targets), while certain countries' ties to terrorism are conveniently overlooked (Saudi Arabia).

Do people have the moral right to engage in violent struggle against an unjust government? Any patriotic American who says "no" needs a history lesson. There's an interesting Wikipedia entry on sucide bombers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers - that makes it sound like the Tamil Tigers primarily go after military and government targets. I'm not saying they're a bunch of choirboys, but I do see a difference between military vs. civilian suicide bombings. Desperate people take desperate measures, and sometimes you can't blame the mud for bringing the rain. I work with a Sri Lankan, I should ask him.

The film The Battle Of Algiers is an interesting + balanced look at the question of terrorism vs. freedom fighting. The Algerians practically invented civilian targeting (a reprehensible act, to be sure), but they were locked in a brutal struggle for independence. Some of what the French did in Algeria makes Guantanamo Bay look like Club Med (such as killing peaceful demonstrators and castrating prisoners to get them to talk - this is stuff that's not in the film). The Algerian success in driving the French out of their country (which was essentially a province of France at the time) was a great incentive for terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever for decades to come.

Have to read that Christgau piece...

Can a mod deindex this thread before we all get visits from our friendly neighborhood C1A agents?

You are too sensible to use the Internet.

Leila Arab was refused entry for some of Björk's last tour. Being born to Iraqi parents probably didn't help (speculation).

There's a whole thread somewhere (can't recall the title) about some really obnoxious changes in the law to entry requirements for musicians which passed not so long ago.

I think ILM survived this ok - ILXOR in todays Guardian

The accusation of terrorism is based in part on the suspicion that the LTTE has been responsible for targeted assassination of political figures and non-military officials, and in part on its use of suicide bombers...It has also been accused of killing moderate Tamils and other Tamils with whose views it disagrees...LTTE has vehemently denied involvement in several of these incidents...In addition, suspected LTTE bombings have been known to have caused civilian casualties. The Sri Lankan government has accused the LTTE of targeting non-military and government targets including Temple of the Tooth in Kandy, Dehiwala train (info needed) and the Central Bank in Colombo. LTTE supporters have argued that civillian [sic] deaths were mainly due to collateral damage and it was not LTTE policy to target civillians.

So obviously the no-civilian-targets thing is up for debate (and Wikipedia wavers in its objectivity/accuracy in a lot of current issue articles). People do have a right to battle an unjust government, but what if the people doing the fighting are worse than the government currently in place?

If the Times is right, it makes her MySpace indignation about 100 million times more hilarious. XD

xpost

-- Jessie the Monster (scarymonsterrr...), May 19th, 2006.

Agree there's a lot of pro-Tamil stuff on Wikipedia - that entry I linked to seems relatively untainted compared to some of the other ones there.

That's what makes this a messy thing - it can be difficult to figure out who's the better party, or who is the lesser of two evils. Sounds like there's been wrong-doing on both sides of the Sri Lankan conflict. I'd assume the Tamil Tigers' collateral damage figures pale in comparison to the US's in the last two Iraq conflicts (our bombs are bigger after all). Christgau's article mentioned that they stopped suicide bombings after 9/11.

Victors get to write the history, though.

i can't tell whether that's hilarious and awesome or stupid and pointless

I think it is pretty hard to argue that the relation between both sides is anything other than Opressor/Opressed and that the Tamils are the lesser evil.

-- JW (jo...), May 19th, 2006 5:10 PM. (ex machina) (later) (link)

Uh, you realize the Human Rights Watch reports that the Tamils have definitely used child soldiers in the past and practice ethnic cleansing against Muslims & Sinhalese, right?

Honestly unintentional mistake. I was on like hour 6 of making rolodex cards at work. Brain was fried. :ccc

THE TAMIL TIGERS PRACTICE RECRUITMENT OF CHILD SOLDIERS AND ETHNIC CLEANSING, ACCORDING TO HRW (har har almost wrote EW that time), NOT THE TAMILS AS AN ETHNIC GROUP/COMMUNITY.

So should we ban Petty Booka from playing SXSW next year b/c one of their ancestors might have fought alongside guys who committed suicide while blowing up one of their enemies?

And how have the Tamil Tigers ever threatened America exactly?

I don't care from a musical perspective whether or not MIA is allowed in or not. But to refuse her entry b/c of her attachments to a war that is none of America's concern is bullshit.

HA!!!
you think SOMEONE here cares about that stuff??! have you seen our president? perhaps his VP? maybe his entire cabinet??

no?

check it out. it's nothing new...

honestly, you don't know what a police state really is...

OTM
-- pleased to mitya (mitya_il...), May 20th, 2006.

son, have you heard of a place called "guantanamo bay"?

as for m.i.a., has anyone confirmed any of this beyond her myspace post?

son, if this thread was called "M.I.A. sent to Guantanamo Bay" I think you'd have seen a more bothered tone.

here in the free world the state tries to prove that people have done bad things - we don't make random people prove their innocence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11763258/

I'm not exactly a champion of the current U.S. culture on civil rights, but let's be real here, folks. "Refusing a foreign national a visa" is not the same thing as "torture," "forcing random people to prove their innocence" or what have you. Hell, this doesn't even seem as questionable as the Nixon administration's attempt to deport John Lennon! Please, simmer down now, k?

oh the irony!

first she was "just ambiguously arting around"

but all her fans took her DEAD SRSLY

no they did!

and now "she can't really be all JUST JOKING"

really!!!!11!1!!

Maybe it leaked?