Dutch MP vows to defy ban on entering Britain.

[Oscar Namechange]

Just to be smug galbally (as you would be to me), I told you so :p:p:p

'Let them arrest me': Dutch MP vows to defy Home Office ban and fly to Britain to show anti-Islam film | Mail Online

[Oscar Namechange]

'Mr Wilders has also compared the Islamic holy book, the Koran, to Mein Kampf and has described Islam as 'retarded'. His Freedom Party calls for the Koran to be banned'.

Do you still believe he should be allowed freedom of speech in Britain galbally?

[Galbally]

oscar;1132881 wrote: 'Mr Wilders has also compared the Islamic holy book, the Koran, to Mein Kampf and has described Islam as 'retarded'. His Freedom Party calls for the Koran to be banned'.

Do you still believe he should be allowed freedom of speech in Britain galbally?


No I don't believe he should be banned, Richard Dawkins calls for religion in general to be scrapped, and the Bible to get gotten rid of, but he is not banned from the US, neither is Christopher Hitchens, and anyway, where is the rest of this thread gone? Have the though police been around in Forum Garden as well?

[abbey]

This is a new thread Gal.

Here is the original thread http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... itain.html

[Galbally]

A link from your own beloved rag, from a journalist writing for the Spectator.

How Britain, the cradle of liberty, is sleepwalking towards cultural suicide

MELANIE PHILLIPS, WRITING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE WEB

If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders should surely open their eyes.

Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday.

This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak.

To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But now the government has announced that it is banning Wilders from the country.

A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said: '...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.

'The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.'

Diplomatic row after Jacqui Smith bans from Britain Dutch MP who planned to show anti-Islam film at House of LordsDiplomatic row after Jacqui Smith bans from Britain Dutch MP who planned to show anti-Islam film at House of Lords.

Britain's a world-leader in sharia banking - but we haven't grasped the sinister and dangerous implications

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs.

The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so.

The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed.

And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide.

If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.

[Galbally]

abbey;1132897 wrote: This is a new thread Gal.

Here is the original thread http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... itain.html


Thanks abbey!

[gmc]

oscar;1132881 wrote: 'Mr Wilders has also compared the Islamic holy book, the Koran, to Mein Kampf and has described Islam as 'retarded'. His Freedom Party calls for the Koran to be banned'.

Do you still believe he should be allowed freedom of speech in Britain galbally?


Why not-this guy gets it

Muslim leader in call for Sharia law in UK (From Echo)

Wonder what he would do to middle aged women that dare to raise their hands to teenage boys? Mind women shouldn't be out on their own anyway.

How about this guy

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit and criticism from Lord Carey| News | This is London

After centuries of warfare we live in a largely secular, tolerant society where even extreme views get a free airing. I don't agree with wilders any more than I agree with Sarfraz Sarwar. His approach to knife crime probably has it's supporters amongst the more right leaning members of the BNP and those that lament you can't beat the crap out of your own children any more and smacking the wife when she answers back is not the done thing any more. But he's free to say it even if it is deeply offensive and likely to incite violence.

On the other hand why should we tolerate people that use intimidation and threats to shut up critics and even less should we pander to them. Being tolerant doesn't mean you cave in to those that shout then loudest.

[Raven]

Galbally;1132898 wrote: A link from your own beloved rag, from a journalist writing for the Spectator.



How Britain, the cradle of liberty, is sleepwalking towards cultural suicide



MELANIE PHILLIPS, WRITING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE WEB



If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders should surely open their eyes.



Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday.



This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak.



To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.



But now the government has announced that it is banning Wilders from the country.



A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said: '...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.



'The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.'



Diplomatic row after Jacqui Smith bans from Britain Dutch MP who planned to show anti-Islam film at House of LordsDiplomatic row after Jacqui Smith bans from Britain Dutch MP who planned to show anti-Islam film at House of Lords.

Britain's a world-leader in sharia banking - but we haven't grasped the sinister and dangerous implications



So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.



It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs.



The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.



It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so.



The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed.



And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.



Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide.



If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.
Just proves Britain is an Islamic country already. May as well do away with the pretense and go Sharia.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1132979 wrote: Why not-this guy gets it

Muslim leader in call for Sharia law in UK (From Echo)

Wonder what he would do to middle aged women that dare to raise their hands to teenage boys? Mind women shouldn't be out on their own anyway.

How about this guy

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit and criticism from Lord Carey| News | This is London

After centuries of warfare we live in a largely secular, tolerant society where even extreme views get a free airing. I don't agree with wilders any more than I agree with Sarfraz Sarwar. His approach to knife crime probably has it's supporters amongst the more right leaning members of the BNP and those that lament you can't beat the crap out of your own children any more and smacking the wife when she answers back is not the done thing any more. But he's free to say it even if it is deeply offensive and likely to incite violence.

On the other hand why should we tolerate people that use intimidation and threats to shut up critics and even less should we pander to them. Being tolerant doesn't mean you cave in to those that shout then loudest.


Please get your facts right Scottish One :p I am not middle aged.... I am young and gorgeous and i did not raise my hand to the said scroat, i grabbed his clothing to stop the said scroat running away from his criminal damage. That's that sorted :p

I have read all your posts and i still stand by what i said in galbally's thread. We have enough loonie's in the BNP Party and i don't see this idiot any differently. Weather anyone agrees with immigration in this country or not........ the fact is, they are here and most are British citizens. The government has a duty to protect it's citizens.

The reasons given from banning him is that muslims could take to the streets in demo's and be an issue to security.

First of all, Why should our muslim community be insulted by this man in the first place? and if there is any possibility that we could have a riot on our hands that could endanger the public and police, then they have every right to keep him out.

Well down Gordie Boy.

[YZGI]

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

[Oscar Namechange]

YZGI;1133207 wrote: 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]

oscar;1133216 wrote: 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.:yh_rotfl

[Oscar Namechange]

YZGI;1133229 wrote: 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.:yh_rotfl


Good call :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1133226 wrote: 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]

oscar;1133238 wrote: 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 Namechange]

Galbally;1133282 wrote: 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]

oscar;1133298 wrote: 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.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1133348 wrote: 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.


If you make a judgement call as you say galbally and 'Smith' gets it wrong....... there is 10,000 muslims take the streets of London to protest. This results in a riot and innocent by-standers, police and emergency services are injured and stretched costing the country thousands of £'s. Who would they jump on? Probably not the Belgian fanatic but The Government. I may have just given the worst case scenario and it may be unlikely, however it is not outside possibility. Even if 5 muslims took to the streets and one innocent was injured..... it is still not worth taking the risk.

He is using free speech as a loophole to incite. He can't incite his anti-Islamic views now he's been banned but i'm in no doubt that we will hear more from him in the way of anti-British government because he has been stopped.

'Abu Hamza' and other hate preacher clerics have been open to arrest even within our laws of human rights and freedom of speech. What this man is doing, is no different to Abu Hamza and quite rightfully needs to be kept out of our country. The fact that is is part of the EU matters not when it comes to any-one with the sole purpose of incitement. If he was allowed in, there would be nothing to stop more muslim clerics from spewing their bile on our streets as well. We can not have one law for Muslim hate Preachers and another for Belgian hate preachers.



GO GORDON

Attached files

[Galbally]

oscar;1133365 wrote: If you make a judgement call as you say galbally and 'Smith' gets it wrong....... there is 10,000 muslims take the streets of London to protest. This results in a riot and innocent by-standers, police and emergency services are injured and stretched costing the country thousands of £'s. Who would they jump on? Probably not the Belgian fanatic but The Government. I may have just given the worst case scenario and it may be unlikely, however it is not outside possibility. Even if 5 muslims took to the streets and one innocent was injured..... it is still not worth taking the risk.

He is using free speech as a loophole to incite. He can't incite his anti-Islamic views now he's been banned but i'm in no doubt that we will hear more from him in the way of anti-British government because he has been stopped.

'Abu Hamza' and other hate preacher clerics have been open to arrest even within our laws of human rights and freedom of speech. What this man is doing, is no different to Abu Hamza and quite rightfully needs to be kept out of our country. The fact that is is part of the EU matters not when it comes to any-one with the sole purpose of incitement. If he was allowed in, there would be nothing to stop more muslim clerics from spewing their bile on our streets as well. We can not have one law for Muslim hate Preachers and another for Belgian hate preachers.



GO GORDON


Again, while respecting your opinion, I disagree.

I think this specific case is driven by PC fear, fear of extremists and fear of the backlash, but that is just handing the power of veto on debate and what its acceptable to talk about anymore, to a very extreme minority within a minority.

Look we could argue this till kingdom come, its been decided on, and the matter is closed for now. I think I will leave this one alone, there are enough problems already, I don't want to depress myself any further than I am already am.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1133405 wrote: Again, while respecting your opinion, I disagree.

I think this specific case is driven by PC fear, fear of extremists and fear of the backlash, but that is just handing the power of veto on debate and what its acceptable to talk about anymore, to a very extreme minority within a minority.

Look we could argue this till kingdom come, its been decided on, and the matter is closed for now. I think I will leave this one alone, there are enough problems already, I don't want to depress myself any further than I am already am.


Well done to Gordon Brown is all i can add:

Dutch MP arrives at Heathrow only to be booted out of Britain over anti-Islam film | Mail Online

[Victoria]

I am no fan of Gert Wilders but I do hope that The Netherlands continues to allow debate and does not pander to bullies.

The Dutch news was fun last night though all the press following Wilders , He loved it he had more publicity yesterday than he has had in years!

The Dutch public don't really understand the problem they normally let him rant in a corner somewhere like you do a deranged uncle.

The Dutch government is annoyed though and questions will be asked after all he is a recognised elected member of the Dutch government.

oh and BTW He is DUTCH not Belgian thats insulting!

[Galbally]

Victoria;1133590 wrote: I am no fan of Gert Wilders but I do hope that The Netherlands continues to allow debate and does not pander to bullies.

The Dutch news was fun last night though all the press following Wilders , He loved it he had more publicity yesterday than he has had in years!

The Dutch public don't really understand the problem they normally let him rant in a corner somewhere like you do a deranged uncle.

The Dutch government is annoyed though and questions will be asked after all he is a recognised elected member of the Dutch government.

oh and BTW He is DUTCH not Belgian thats insulting!


Yes, long live good old Dutch Freedom of expression and opinion, and hopefully the British people (and more importantly their government) will relearn the lessons they taught the world once, for themselves, again.

[Issie]

Hear hear.

Yes, he is Dutch and he is a democratically elected member of parliament of the Netherlands.

He was invited by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson to come into the UK and show his 17 minute long film in the House of Lords and debate amongst themselves about the content of the film.

Therefore, this film was not being shown to the general public, even though the film has been available for nearly a year on the Internet.

Now, let’s have a closer look at the Muslim peer Lord Nazir Ahmed.

He decided that this film should not be shown and Geert Wilders not allowed into the country.

He threatened, yes threatened, to rally up 10.000 Muslims to demonstrate outside the House of Lords and he has been reported as saying in the Pakistan press “A victory for the Muslim community”.

It then became a matter of law, order and security and the British Home Secretary took the decision on those grounds, influenced/intimidated by Lord Ahmed.

This is the same Lord Ahmed who on the 23rd February 2005, hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

This is the same Lord Ahmed who is waiting to be sentenced in a British Court of Law for texting on his phone just before a car crash that killed a man.

Geert Wilders was in the House of Lords two months ago having lunch, he wasn’t deemed as being a threat then.

Most of the media who are jumping on the Islamic band wagon haven’t even seen the film, the opposition parties have suddenly become dumb and the organisation called “Liberty” who profess to fight for “human rights” and “freedom of speech” are also nowhere to be found....or are they just selective on whose freedom they want to protect.?

Wilders had a right as European MP with a British Passport to come into the UK, he has threatened no one and walks around in fear of his life.

Whether he is a looney is a matter of opinion, but the fact that his opinion has been silenced by the intimidation of violence on the streets of England by a Muslim Lord, is a sad day for British democracy and freedom of speech.

Having seen the film called Fitna, there is nowhere in it that incites violence, it is a factual film of events, the violence coming from a one-way traffic.

It shows scenes of the terrible day that those planes were flown into the towers, the carnage of the train in the Madrid bombing, the carnage of the bus on the streets of London, the Imams spewing out verses of hate in mosques to kill the infidels, and a little girl aged about 4 years old being taught that Jews are pigs.

Uncomfortable viewing for some Muslims and some would like to pretend that these things never happened, but fact, they did.

Let’s not debate it, let’s not try and understand, let’s just silence anyone who criticises Islam.

A very sad day indeed for freedom of speech, but while we keep this Dutch MP out of the country, I suggest you take a look at who we let in.

Banned Dutch MP flies in... and is sent straight home again | Mail Online

Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest | Stephen Pollard - Times Online

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - British Parliament calls off screening of controversial film

[Clodhopper]

In the longer term, I don't think the Muslims in this country will be a problem. The British culture of absorbtion (sp?) is already at work. The children are more integrated, and their children will be more integrated still.

In the short term, there will be problems, and there may well be violence. In the longer term - they are us.

[Galbally]

More from other journalists. In India an editor and a reporter from a respected nation newspaper have been arrested because they dared to publish an article "offensive" to Muslims. This ended up in 10,000 Muslims surrounding the HQ of the newspaper in Calcultta and now the Government has arrested the editor. The original article was about the destruction of secularist thought because of increasing pandering to religiosity in general, and to Islamic extremism in particular, it was written by a British Journalist for the UK newspaper "The Independent" several weeks ago.

Here is what he says in response to what is happening to the concept of free speech, and being allowed to challenge religiously inspired ideas, its truly frightening what is happening out there.

Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote

The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech

Friday, 13 February 2009



Last week, I wrote an article defending free speech for everyone – and in response there have been riots, death threats, and the arrest of an editor who published the article.

Here's how it happened. My column reported on a startling development at the United Nations. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights has always had the job of investigating governments who forcibly take the fundamental human right to free speech from their citizens with violence. But in the past year, a coalition of religious fundamentalist states has successfully fought to change her job description. Now, she has to report on "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets." Instead of defending free speech, she must now oppose it.

I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.

This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.

A religious idea is just an idea somebody had a long time ago, and claimed to have received from God. It does not have a different status to other ideas; it is not surrounded by an electric fence none of us can pass.

That's why I wrote: "All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him. I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade."

An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."

Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings". I am told I too will be arrested if I go to Calcutta.

What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.

I did not write a sectarian attack on any particular religion of the kind that could lead to a rerun of India's hellish anti-Muslim or anti-Sikh pogroms, but rather a principled critique of all religions who try to forcibly silence their critics. The right to free speech I am defending protects Muslims as much as everyone else. I passionately support their right to say anything they want – as long as I too have the right to respond.

It's worth going through the arguments put forward by the rioting fundamentalists, because they will keep recurring in the twenty-first century as secularism is assaulted again and again. They said I had upset "the harmony" of India, and it could only be restored by my arrest. But this is a lop-sided vision of "harmony". It would mean that religious fundamentalists are free to say whatever they want – and the rest of us have to shut up and agree.

The protestors said I deliberately set out to "offend" them, and I am supposed to say that, no, no offence was intended. But the honest truth is more complicated. Offending fundamentalists isn't my goal – but if it is an inevitable side-effect of defending human rights, so be it. If fanatics who believe Muslim women should be imprisoned in their homes and gay people should be killed are insulted by my arguments, I don't resile from it. Nothing worth saying is inoffensive to everyone.

You do not have a right to be ring-fenced from offence. Every day, I am offended – not least by ancient religious texts filled with hate-speech. But I am glad, because I know that the price of taking offence is that I can give it too, if that is where the facts lead me. But again, the protestors propose a lop-sided world. They do not propose to stop voicing their own heinously offensive views about women's rights or homosexuality, but we have to shut up and take it – or we are the ones being "insulting".

It's also worth going through the arguments of the Western defenders of these protestors, because they too aren't going away. Already I have had e-mails and bloggers saying I was "asking for it" by writing a "needlessly provocative" article. When there is a disagreement and one side uses violence, it is a reassuring rhetorical stance to claim both sides are in the wrong, and you take a happy position somewhere in the middle. But is this true? I wrote an article defending human rights, and stating simple facts. Fanatics want to arrest or kill me for it. Is there equivalence here?

The argument that I was "asking for it" seems a little like saying a woman wearing a short skirt is "asking" to be raped. Or, as Salman Rushdie wrote when he received far, far worse threats simply for writing a novel (and a masterpiece at that): "When Osip Mandelstam wrote his poem against Stalin, did he ‘know what he was doing' and so deserve his death?

When the students filled Tiananmen Square to ask for freedom, were they not also, and knowingly, asking for the murderous repression that resulted? When Terry Waite was taken hostage, hadn't he been ‘asking for it'?" When fanatics threaten violence against people who simply use words, you should not blame the victim.

These events are also a reminder of why it is so important to try to let the oxygen of rationality into religious debates – and introduce doubt. Voltaire – one of the great anti-clericalists – said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." If you can be made to believe the absurd notion that an invisible deity dictated The Eternal Unchanging Truth to a specific person at a specific time in history and anyone who questions this is Evil, then you can easily be made to demand the death of journalists and free women and homosexuals who question that Truth.

But if they have a moment of doubt – if there is a single nagging question at the back of their minds – then they are more likely to hesitate. That's why these ideas must be challenged at their core, using words and reason.

But the fundamentalists are determined not to allow those rational ideas to be heard – because at some level they know they will persuade for many people, especially children and teenagers in the slow process of being indoctrinated.

If, after all the discussion and all the facts about how contradictory and periodically vile their ‘holy' texts are, religious people still choose fanatical faith, I passionately defend their right to articulate it. Free speech is for the stupid and the wicked and the wrong – whether it is fanatics or the racist Geert Wilders – just as much as for the rational and the right.

All I say is that they do not have the right to force it on other people or silence the other side. In this respect, Wilders resembles the Islamists he professes to despise: he wants to ban the Koran. Fine. Let him make his argument. He discredits himself by speaking such ugly nonsense.

The solution to the problems of free speech – that sometimes people will say terrible things – is always and irreducibly more free speech. If you don't like what a person says, argue back. Make a better case. Persuade people. The best way to discredit a bad argument is to let people hear it. I recently interviewed the pseudo-historian David Irving, and simply quoting his crazy arguments did far more harm to him than any Austrian jail sentence for Holocaust Denial.

Please do not imagine that if you defend these rioters, you are defending ordinary Muslims. If we allow fanatics to silence all questioning voices, the primary victims today will be Muslim women, Muslim gay people, and the many good and honourable Muslim men who support them.

Imagine what Britain would look like now if everybody who offered dissenting thoughts about Christianity in the seventeenth century and since was intimidated into silence by the mobs and tyrants who wanted to preserve the most literalist and fanatical readings of the Bible. Imagine how women and gay people would live.

You can see this if you compare my experience to that of journalists living under religious-Islamist regimes. Because generations of British people sought to create a secular space, when I went to the police, they offered total protection. When they go to the police, they are handed over to the fanatics – or charged for their "crimes." They are people like Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the young Afghan journalism student who was sentenced to death for downloading a report on women's rights.

They are people like the staff of Zanan, one of Iran's leading reform-minded women's magazines, who have been told they will be jailed if they carry on publishing. They are people like the 27-year old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman who has been seized, jailed and tortured in Egypt for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah law.

It would be a betrayal of them – and the tens of thousands of journalists like them – to apologize for what I wrote. Yes, if we speak out now, there will be turbulence and threats, and some people may get hurt.

But if we fall silent – if we leave the basic human values of free speech, feminism and gay rights undefended in the face of violent religious mobs – then many, many more people will be hurt in the long term. Today, we have to use our right to criticise religion – or lose it.

And finally, If you are appalled by the erosion of secularism across the world and want to do something about it, there are a number of organizations you can join, volunteer for or donate to.

Some good places to start are the National Secular Society, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, or – if you want the money to go specifically to work in India – the International Humanist and Ethical Union. (Mark your donation as for their India branch.)

Even donating a few hours or a few pounds can really make a difference to defending people subject to religious oppression – by providing them with legal help, education materials, and lobbying for changes in the law.

An essential source of news for secularists is the terrific website Butterflies and Wheels.

[Oscar Namechange]

Issie;1133664 wrote: Hear hear.

Yes, he is Dutch and he is a democratically elected member of parliament of the Netherlands.

He was invited by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson to come into the UK and show his 17 minute long film in the House of Lords and debate amongst themselves about the content of the film.

Therefore, this film was not being shown to the general public, even though the film has been available for nearly a year on the Internet.

Now, let’s have a closer look at the Muslim peer Lord Nazir Ahmed.

He decided that this film should not be shown and Geert Wilders not allowed into the country.

He threatened, yes threatened, to rally up 10.000 Muslims to demonstrate outside the House of Lords and he has been reported as saying in the Pakistan press “A victory for the Muslim community”.

It then became a matter of law, order and security and the British Home Secretary took the decision on those grounds, influenced/intimidated by Lord Ahmed.

This is the same Lord Ahmed who on the 23rd February 2005, hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

This is the same Lord Ahmed who is waiting to be sentenced in a British Court of Law for texting on his phone just before a car crash that killed a man.

Geert Wilders was in the House of Lords two months ago having lunch, he wasn’t deemed as being a threat then.

Most of the media who are jumping on the Islamic band wagon haven’t even seen the film, the opposition parties have suddenly become dumb and the organisation called “Liberty” who profess to fight for “human rights” and “freedom of speech” are also nowhere to be found....or are they just selective on whose freedom they want to protect.?

Wilders had a right as European MP with a British Passport to come into the UK, he has threatened no one and walks around in fear of his life.

Whether he is a looney is a matter of opinion, but the fact that his opinion has been silenced by the intimidation of violence on the streets of England by a Muslim Lord, is a sad day for British democracy and freedom of speech.

Having seen the film called Fitna, there is nowhere in it that incites violence, it is a factual film of events, the violence coming from a one-way traffic.

It shows scenes of the terrible day that those planes were flown into the towers, the carnage of the train in the Madrid bombing, the carnage of the bus on the streets of London, the Imams spewing out verses of hate in mosques to kill the infidels, and a little girl aged about 4 years old being taught that Jews are pigs.

Uncomfortable viewing for some Muslims and some would like to pretend that these things never happened, but fact, they did.

Let’s not debate it, let’s not try and understand, let’s just silence anyone who criticises Islam.

A very sad day indeed for freedom of speech, but while we keep this Dutch MP out of the country, I suggest you take a look at who we let in.

Banned Dutch MP flies in... and is sent straight home again | Mail Online

Lord Ahmed's unwelcome guest | Stephen Pollard - Times Online

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - British Parliament calls off screening of controversial film:yh_ttth:yh_ttth:yh_ttth:yh_ttth

The Government has the right to use the law against any one threatening National Security. Have you actually looked at what this tosser is saying about muslims?

[Clodhopper]

Galbally: Good old Johann. He's convinced me - not that I needed much convincing. Good journalist.

Oscar: Perhaps one of the ways standards in this country are slipping is that we don't instinctively react against this infringement of free speech, in the way our parents would have done? The man appears to be a nasty piece of work, but this has given him a martyr's status, for those who wish to be deceived by him.

[Galbally]

Clodhopper;1134288 wrote: Galbally: Good old Johann. He's convinced me - not that I needed much convincing. Good journalist.

Oscar: Perhaps one of the ways standards in this country are slipping is that we don't instinctively react against this infringement of free speech, in the way our parents would have done? The man appears to be a nasty piece of work, but this has given him a martyr's status, for those who wish to be deceived by him.


Indeed, we really are in a period of "wake up time", we really do need to cast a cold hard eye the way things are going in our countries; that's my honest opinion and I am sure that many people share it.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1134451 wrote: Indeed, we really are in a period of "wake up time", we really do need to cast a cold hard eye the way things are going in our countries; that's my honest opinion and I am sure that many people share it.


Some of the attitudes on this and the other thread about this are getting ridiculous.

Some people have this concept that we are over-run with muslims who will take over our countries and ultimately destroy us.

Has any of these posters actually been part of a muslim community? I doubt it very much.

Well, last night, i and several muslims sat around eating and discussing this issue. I wish some of the posters here could have been in the room. :wah:

[Clodhopper]

Interesting one, this case. I've ended up coming out for the principle of free speech over the pragmatic situation of this Wild bloke causing trouble. But I can see the case for the pragmatic, especially if next time (and there will be a next time) some sort of stand can be taken and this occasion referred to as an example of our willingness to compromise. But that would be remarkably joined up thinking from a government that appears completely involved in the short term.

I think you are right, and we should be looking at what's really important in our civilisation. It doesn't get much more important than free speech.

[Oscar Namechange]

Clodhopper;1134495 wrote: Interesting one, this case. I've ended up coming out for the principle of free speech over the pragmatic situation of this Wild bloke causing trouble. But I can see the case for the pragmatic, especially if next time (and there will be a next time) some sort of stand can be taken and this occasion referred to as an example of our willingness to compromise. But that would be remarkably joined up thinking from a government that appears completely involved in the short term.

I think you are right, and we should be looking at what's really important in our civilisation. It doesn't get much more important than free speech.Morning Clod......By the way.... it was a Mistle Thrush :wah:

Anyway, i am still of the opinion that the government would not have banned him lightly. I don't believe the government gives up all the details to the tabloid press and i'm sure that there was a lot more to this guy than we have been privy to.

I don't see this as being the down-fall of freedom of speech and i don't believe the government has done this in the guise of freedom of speech. It is about one man who's views of muslims, not just here, but worldwide, was likely to cause a breach of security. He was stopped from coming into the country under the national security laws not freedom of speech and there is a heck of a difference.

[Galbally]

oscar;1134493 wrote: Some of the attitudes on this and the other thread about this are getting ridiculous.

Some people have this concept that we are over-run with muslims who will take over our countries and ultimately destroy us.

Has any of these posters actually been part of a muslim community? I doubt it very much.

Well, last night, i and several muslims sat around eating and discussing this issue. I wish some of the posters here could have been in the room. :wah:


I won't accept that for a minute, I not a bigot or xenophobic or a racist, and I won't be lectured to about it. This thread is far more about the right of secular freedom of speech than it is to do with Islam or Muslims, the issues with Islam and secular values are just one of the most obvious parts of that debate.

When you post about how horrified you were, about what Israel has done this year in Gaza would you accept the right wing pro-Israel lobby trying to shut you up by just claiming that all your opinions are driven by Anti-semitism, of course you wouldn't.

I am Irish, a humanist, a European, a secularist, a Catholic, and I am a person who is Western and has Western values; I'm an Irishman living in my own country, fought for by my ancestors, who died to to give me the right to say what I believe without fear or favour; that's my identity, I won't apologize to anyone or any PC agenda for that.

[Clodhopper]

Morning Clod......By the way.... it was a Mistle Thrush

Anyway, i am still of the opinion that the government would not have banned him lightly. I don't believe the government gives up all the details to the tabloid press and i'm sure that there was a lot more to this guy than we have been privy to.

I don't see this as being the down-fall of freedom of speech and i don't believe the government has done this in the guise of freedom of speech. It is about one man who's views of muslims, not just here, but worldwide, was likely to cause a breach of security. He was stopped from coming into the country under the national security laws not freedom of speech and there is a heck of a difference.


Lucky you with the Mistle Thrush. If you aren't careful you are going to look out of your window and find Clodhopper Twitching away in a nearby hedge.:wah:

No, not the downfall of free speech, but I think the free speech case needs to made loudly whatever the result of an individual situation. At the least it helps keep the issue well to the forefront. National Security is a wide blanket and could mean almost anything. But at least it means they have not in a literal sense breached the principle of free speech. It seems they've sort of ducked.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1134513 wrote: I won't accept that for a minute, I not a bigot or xenophobic or a racist, and I won't be lectured to about it. This thread is far more about the right of secular freedom of speech than it is to do with Islam or Muslims, the issues with Islam and secular values are just one of the most obvious parts of that debate.

When you post about how horrified about what Israel has done this year in Gaza would you accept the right wing pro-Israel lobby trying to shut you up by just claiming that all your opinions are driven by Anti-semitism, of course you wouldn't.

I am Irish, a humanist, a European, a secularist, a Catholic, and I am a person who is Western and has Western values; I'm an Irishman living in my own country, fought for by my ancestors, who died to to give me the right to say what I believe without fear or favour; that's my identity, I won't apologize to anyone or any PC agenda for that.


If i was trying to go to Israel and spout my opions on Gaza in an Anti-Semitic manner, then frankly, yes, i would expect them to try to silence me naturally.

I don't expect you to apologis for being anything any more than i will apologise for agreeing with a decision made by my government.

To me, there is another side to this guy. If he had come in quietly, took a stand on speakers corner in Hyde Park, i may not have such as an issue with him. Everything he has done has been leaked to the press and no prizes for guessing who leaked. When he defied the ban and got on the plane, half the passengers were reporters. he's out for his own gains.

Again, i stand by what i said on the other thread.......... If just a few muslims took to the streets and one innocent got hurt, then the guy is not worth it. I can say that last night when i discussed this issue with my local muslim community, they are relieved the government has stepped in and stopped him.

If we tell the likes of Abu Hamza that they can't preach anti-western hatred then the same applies here.

[Galbally]

oscar;1134530 wrote: If i was trying to go to Israel and spout my opions on Gaza in an Anti-Semitic manner, then frankly, yes, i would expect them to try to silence me naturally.

I don't expect you to apologis for being anything any more than i will apologise for agreeing with a decision made by my government.

To me, there is another side to this guy. If he had come in quietly, took a stand on speakers corner in Hyde Park, i may not have such as an issue with him. Everything he has done has been leaked to the press and no prizes for guessing who leaked. When he defied the ban and got on the plane, half the passengers were reporters. he's out for his own gains.

Again, i stand by what i said on the other thread.......... If just a few muslims took to the streets and one innocent got hurt, then the guy is not worth it. I can say that last night when i discussed this issue with my local muslim community, they are relieved the government has stepped in and stopped him.

If we tell the likes of Abu Hamza that they can't preach anti-western hatred then the same applies here.


I have never suggested that you should apologize for supporting the policy of your Government, or the right of the Home Secretary to make the decision she has, I am just disagreeing with it.

No more than I would expect British Muslims should apologize to anyone for being Muslims or being British.

We are all EU citizens and we have a right to debate these issues, whether they are uncomfortable or not. No community has a monopoly on the right to take offence.

Its my belief that this man's views are extreme, but they are not so extreme that they can't even be discussed, or that he should be banned from Britain for expressing them.

That's where we disagree, respectfully I hope.

Its as simple as that.