Amazing, just amazing. The British government has forbidden Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to come to the UK, over his anti-Islamic activism. Excerpt from the Times of London report:
It is understood that Mr Wilders was denied entry under EU law, which allows a member state to bar individuals if they constitute a threat to public policy, security or health.Mr Wilders said that he received a letter from the British ambassador yesterday, telling him that he was not welcome because his visit would "threaten community harmony and therefore public security".
Mr Wilders told reporters: "I'll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs."
The Home Office refused to comment on the case but a spokesperson said: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced in October last year."
The Dutch government can't stand Wilders, but was so offended by the insult to one of its own parliamentarians that it filed a protest with the UK government. As well it should have done. I notice as well that the Times of London identified Wilders as "far-right," which is absurd. He is a provocateur on the subject of Islam, but he is in no meaningful sense right-wing. They simply don't know how to deal with what he is: a politician who is speaking out, however stridently, for the preservation of liberal values in the face of anti-liberal bullying.
Let the record show that the UK government does not wish to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages from entering the UK. Why, the former Lord Mayor of London rolled out the red carpet in 2005 for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a highly influential Muslim fanatic who publicly advocates for suicide bombing and murdering homosexuals. More recently, the British government allowed the chief spokesman for Hezbollah to enter the country last year.
Look, I think any government has the right to keep any foreigner it wants to out of its country, but really now, why the double standard? Obviously, because the British are scared to death of their own Muslim population. Lord Ahmed, a Muslim Labour peer, has been threatening to gather a mob of 10,000 Muslims to block Wilders' entry into Westminster, where he'd been invited to show his film "Fitna" to MPs. When the government caved, Lord Ahmed proclaimed "a victory for the Muslim community."
That it is -- and a loss for free speech and liberal democracy. Britain's dhimmitude continues. Insane, really, but I think we can all see where this is going. Wilders, though, will benefit from this -- as will the cause of defending free speech and religious liberty from Muslim thugs. Wilders is quoted as saying:
"If they want to put me in handcuffs, a Dutch parliamentarian and party leader and send me back to The Netherlands, so be it."This might wake some people up to the threat of the influence of extremist bullies who will have won a battle but not the war".
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rombald, I stand corrected on the use of the word dhimmi. You have made a most salient point, though I might point out that most of the people in the government are, at least ostensibly, Christians and Jews. One thought I had was to send everyone involved in banning Wilders a white feather. Any reactions?
"I think you're overreacting, Britain isn't America and this is fairly normal, we have a long tradition of shutting down people with extremist views. "
Good point. Americans tend to forget that our legal tradition regarding free speech is unique. I read an article a few months discussing this. The Oliver Wendell Holmes' idea of the 'marketplace of ideas' hasn't been embraced by other western nations.
equaltojoke - Did you miss the part about Britain's open courting of Islamists who have openly supported and called for violence against infidels and homo-sexuals? I'd say this has a lot less to do with 'British political history', and more to do with the establishment of a leftist, reactionary regime in Britain.
Lord Ahmed, a Muslim Labour peer, has been threatening to gather a mob of 10,000 Muslims to block Wilders' entry into Westminster,
"threaten community harmony and therefore public security".
Is it really so absurd to consider G. W. far-right? Researchers of the Anne Frank foundation concluded that he is, in fact, a far-right politician. The only thing atypical about him, in this respect, is his love for Israel. Let's also not forget that prior the the elections he raised support for his party on far-right internet forums. In the Dutch parliament, while talking about troublemakers of Moroccan descent, he called for the army being put into action to "clean the cities and villages in the provinces of the Netherlands". This can be understood as a call for ethnic cleansing. And as for freedom of speech: one cannot, in all seriousness, claim that someone with the childish ambition to ban the Koran wants to defend freedom of speech.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.