Dutch MP vows to defy ban on entering Britain.

[YZGI]

The "Da Vinci Code" was said to be anti Catholic and there were no banishments.

[oscar]

The "Da Vinci Code" was said to be anti Catholic and there were no banishments.

I agree but 'Dan Brown' was a fictional novelist. This guy seems to be hell bent on stirring anti-islamic hatred.

[Galbally]

From the Times of London.

Geert Wilders - Let Him In

Denying entry to the UK for a Dutch demagogue is bad politics and precedent
Geert Wilders, the leader of the right-wing Freedom Party in the Netherlands, is not so much an unlikely as an incredible standard-bearer for liberty. His most prominent political stance is his opposition to what he terms “Islamic invasion”. He is the authentic voice of provincial populism and even xenophobia. He encapsulates the adage of Harold Macmillan that criticism in politics is never inhibited by ignorance.

Mr Wilders' remorseless themes are opposition to immigration and condemnation of Islam. He depicts Islam as monolithic, monocausal and monomaniacal. Its founder is a “terrorist” and a “war criminal”. Mr Wilders compares the Koran to Mein Kampf for its incendiary content, and demands that it be proscribed. With an irony so clumsy that it can be lost only on himself, he declares 2009 “a year to defend free speech”.

He is a very unlikely ally of liberal values. Indeed, his notoriety in the Netherlands, and the adulation that he enjoys among nativist movements elsewhere, is based precisely on his antipathy to basic liberal precepts. His opposition to Islam is a demand for cultural uniformity rather than a defence of secularism. His talk of the universality of human rights is a cover for restricting their reach.

Instead of calling for a common citizenship that makes no distinction on the grounds of race or creed, Mr Wilders demands that the United States and European nations “stop appeasing Islam and start fighting together against the rapidly increasing Islamisation of Europe”.

For all the obvious hollowness of Mr Wilders' credentials as a defender of free speech, the cause is a good one. It is a common notion that the right to free speech must be held in balance with the requirement to avoid needless offence. That is a mistake. The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people's beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one's emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people's feelings. Mr Wilders' views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended. It is regrettable that Mr Wilders faces not just ostracism but prosecution in the Netherlands because of his comments about Islam.

The Home Office judges that Mr Wilders' presence in the UK would threaten public order and has banned him from entering the country. Last year Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric with inflammatory views on Jews and homosexuals, was denied a visa to visit the UK. Mr Wilders' politics are no less inflammatory.

But that is not enough to warrant a ban. Demagogic speech is a test of the liberal political rights on which the culture of a liberal democracy rests. Let Mr Wilders exploit them. His political posturing is so self-evidently preposterous that, if he is permitted to speak freely, he will be arraigned before the best court in the land - the court of public opinion.

[YZGI]

I agree but 'Dan Brown' was a fictional novelist. This guy seems to be hell bent on stirring anti-islamic hatred.

I think a few on FG would say that you're hell bent on stirring anti-America hatred and we would still let you in. There would however be many restrictions.

[oscar]

I think a few on FG would say that you're hell bent on stirring anti-America hatred and we would still let you in. There would however be many restrictions.

Good call

[oscar]

From the Times of London.

Geert Wilders - Let Him In

Denying entry to the UK for a Dutch demagogue is bad politics and precedent
Geert Wilders, the leader of the right-wing Freedom Party in the Netherlands, is not so much an unlikely as an incredible standard-bearer for liberty. His most prominent political stance is his opposition to what he terms “Islamic invasion”. He is the authentic voice of provincial populism and even xenophobia. He encapsulates the adage of Harold Macmillan that criticism in politics is never inhibited by ignorance.

Mr Wilders' remorseless themes are opposition to immigration and condemnation of Islam. He depicts Islam as monolithic, monocausal and monomaniacal. Its founder is a “terrorist” and a “war criminal”. Mr Wilders compares the Koran to Mein Kampf for its incendiary content, and demands that it be proscribed. With an irony so clumsy that it can be lost only on himself, he declares 2009 “a year to defend free speech”.

He is a very unlikely ally of liberal values. Indeed, his notoriety in the Netherlands, and the adulation that he enjoys among nativist movements elsewhere, is based precisely on his antipathy to basic liberal precepts. His opposition to Islam is a demand for cultural uniformity rather than a defence of secularism. His talk of the universality of human rights is a cover for restricting their reach.

Instead of calling for a common citizenship that makes no distinction on the grounds of race or creed, Mr Wilders demands that the United States and European nations “stop appeasing Islam and start fighting together against the rapidly increasing Islamisation of Europe”.
For all the obvious hollowness of Mr Wilders' credentials as a defender of free speech, the cause is a good one. It is a common notion that the right to free speech must be held in balance with the requirement to avoid needless offence. That is a mistake. The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people's beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one's emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people's feelings. Mr Wilders' views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended. It is regrettable that Mr Wilders faces not just ostracism but prosecution in the Netherlands because of his comments about Islam.

The Home Office judges that Mr Wilders' presence in the UK would threaten public order and has banned him from entering the country. Last year Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Muslim cleric with inflammatory views on Jews and homosexuals, was denied a visa to visit the UK. Mr Wilders' politics are no less inflammatory.

But that is not enough to warrant a ban. Demagogic speech is a test of the liberal political rights on which the culture of a liberal democracy rests. Let Mr Wilders exploit them. His political posturing is so self-evidently preposterous that, if he is permitted to speak freely, he will be arraigned before the best court in the land - the court of public opinion.

This is utter bollocks and gets more farcical the more the idiot is defended.

This fruitcake is a radical and no different to Abu Hamza. He is using our 'Free Speech' as a loophole to come here and preach hatred.

[Galbally]

This is utter bollocks and gets more farcical the more the idiot is defended.

This fruitcake is a radical and no different to Abu Hamza. He is using our 'Free Speech' as a loophole to come here and preach hatred.

Your deliberately missing the point, if we cannot have this debate, then we cannot move past it. It may be an uncomfortable debate, but its a real one, and it will have to be discussed at some point.

Thats what freedom of expression and opinion is about, well, for now the matter is closed and the individual has been banned from entering the UK for 3 years.

However, the issues around which he has been banned will not go away, and the debate will be had anyway, one way or another. Whether you want it or not.

[oscar]

Your deliberately missing the point, if we cannot have this debate, then we cannot move past it. It may be an uncomfortable debate, but its a real one, and it will have to be discussed at some point.

Thats what freedom of expression and opinion is about, well, for now the matter is closed and the individual has been banned from entering the UK for 3 years.

However, the issues around which he has been banned will not go away, and the debate will be had anyway, one way or another. Whether you want it or not.

Well, i'm still in total agrement with the government. If there is even an iota of a chance that even 100 British muslims will take to the streets protesting, endagering the possible safety of the public and services, then the source of that threat must be removed and not give in to the whim of one radical.
Our government does not ban people from entering this country willy nilly. You only have to look at some of people we grant immigration to. We probably only know a very small part of what this man has been up to. The government don't release the full facts to the tabloids. There could be a huge amount we don't know.
It comes down to, who do you pisse off? One Belgian anti-Islamic radical or thousands of muslim British citizens?


Good call Gordon.

[Sheryl]

Interesting blog on the whole deal, be sure to follow the links.

[Galbally]

Well, i'm still in total agrement with the government. If there is even an iota of a chance that even 100 British muslims will take to the streets protesting, endagering the possible safety of the public and services, then the source of that threat must be removed and not give in to the whim of one radical.
Our government does not ban people from entering this country willy nilly. You only have to look at some of people we grant immigration to. We probably only know a very small part of what this man has been up to. The government don't release the full facts to the tabloids. There could be a huge amount we don't know.
It comes down to, who do you pisse off? One Belgian anti-Islamic radical or thousands of muslim British citizens?


Good call Gordon.

It is the right of the Home Secretary to make these decisions and I respect that, I am not in favour of allowing hatred to be whipped up just because of mischief making or one individuals extreme views, obviously the Government have to be responsible for the general situation in terms of ensuring public order. That is understood, thats not always an easy or popular job.

These are judgement calls, I accept that they are not easy, and freedoms have to measured with responsibility. I believe that in this specific case, banning the individual doesn't achieve that purpose, though as you say I am not privy to all the information.

My general belief is that, as the maxim goes, when in doubt you should err on the side of liberty, though of course thats an easy thing to say, its much harder to actually do when there will be direct consequences, and we have lived in a consequence-free culture for so long, perhaps we are no longer willing to pay the price of such things. So, yes, I do respect what your saying, I just disagree in this case and on this issue.

I honestly don't think this argument will go away, and trying to stifle this debate isn't going to do anything except increase the perception that one set of extremist views is being tolerated to a certain extent because of fears of a backlash if they are tackled, while another set is being quashed as the fear of a backlash is also feared if they are even discussed openly. That in itself may cause an unwelcome reaction from certain segments of society.

Its a difficult and scary time we live in, of that I have no doubts. It seems to me now, that our own self-confidence in our way of life and our right to choose it freely is under more threat now, than at any time since the 1930s and 40s; its being assaulted on all sides, from within and from without, from violent Islamicists, Christian Fundamentalists, Right Wing Proto facists, utopian socialists, smug arrogant and irresponsible home governments, hostile foreign powers, and also from our own compromised economic philosophies and the institutions and intellectuals that have promoted them; which all seem to be have led us to an economic diasater, and a looming social and political one.

Its a frightening and depressing time we are living in, but I suppose this is when we find out whether we really believe in the things we say we believe in, and how far we will go to defend them, and even whether we are able to any more.