NationStates Jolt Archive

Geert Wilders, our favourite politician from the low countries with the intruiging hairstyle, has once again made news. Not only does the UK government not wish him to show the shoddy powerpointpresentation known as "Fitna" in parliament - they do not even want him in the country. Wilders has stated in reply that he plans to travel to the UK next thursday anyway.

Of course, debate ensues. Can a European country deny access to citizens of other European countries ? What if those citizens are politicans ?
Is advocating a controversial opinion sufficient reason to ban someone ? And is being controversial all Wilders is doing, or is he truly seeding hate ?

Well NSG - time to join this controversy ;)

"Controversial" is a bit of a euphemism. He's a hate-monger, and he made his career with that shit. Now it's biting him in the ass.

I'm not sad. Let him go on one of those leaky refugee boats he thinks it'd be really swell for everyone else to leave in.

Of course, debate ensues. Can a European country deny access to citizens of other European countries ? What if those citizens are politicans ?

The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm

And it also goes to show how unsavoury UKIP are:
Mr Wilders was asked to show the film at the House of Lords by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson.

I won't miss him.

They should have let him in.

They should have let him in.
I don't like the idea of banning someone simply because his ideas are so offensive - considering that we can (and do) deal with worse from the UK on a regular basis. However, he and his bullshit video should not be allowed anywhere near Parliament, and shame on this Lord for inviting him.

I'm not sad.

I won't miss him.

Would you say the same thing if he had been saying things you agree with ?

However, he and his bullshit video should not be allowed anywhere near Parliament, and shame on this Lord for inviting him.

How do you know his video's bullshit? Have you even seen it?

I think Mr Wilders is trying to provoke a amenity between the UK and the EU to be played out in the courts.

Would you say the same thing if he had been saying things you agree with ?

You mean if he was a completely different person, and being banned for completely different reasons in completely different circumstances? I dunno. Maybe.

But back to reality, this guy is just a real-life troll. And he has the nerve to whine about UK not supporting free speech when he himself called for the Koran to be banned. He's no better than any Jew-hating fascist. Hating Muslims doesn't make him any more palatable. He's an embarassment to humanity.

How do you know his video's bullshit? Have you even seen it?

I've talked to people who have. Apparently it opens overlaying the 9/11 attacks with a picture of the Koran. And iirc Mr Wilders has in the past said the Koran was on a par with Mein Kampf.

I don't agree with him being banned, but he should never have been invited in the first place.

He's no better than any Jew-hating fascist.

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?

Of course, debate ensues. Can a European country deny access to citizens of other European countries ? What if those citizens are politicans ?
Yeh, of course they can. Any state in the world can deny access to people who are not it's citizens - within reason.

Is advocating a controversial opinion sufficient reason to ban someone ?
If it incites hatred and/or violence, then sure.

And is being controversial all Wilders is doing, or is he truly seeding hate ?
S'up to the UK courts to decide really.

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?
Do 'targeted killings' count?

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?

are you counting when the Israeli military does it ?

Apparently it opens overlaying the 9/11 attacks with a picture of the Koran.

It was done by Muslims, in the name of Islam, so fair enough.

And iirc Mr Wilders has in the past said the Koran was on a par with Mein Kampf.

They're both Jew-bashing and call for genocide, so that's a decent comparison.

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?

Yeah I get it. It's okay to hate Muslims, in your view. Whatever. Doesn't even address my points, but I'm glad to see you're as Islamophobic and bigoted as ever.

Yeah I get it. It's okay to hate Muslims, in your view. Whatever. Doesn't even address my points, but I'm glad to see you're as Islamophobic and bigoted as ever.

I did address your point.

its stupid this European rule where they have to let people in. why was it even made in the first place? i say pick who you wanna come in. cause otherwise you get people like this ass coming in and making the shit hit the fan. i say ban him for life.

Yeh, of course they can. Any state in the world can deny access to people who are not it's citizens - within reason.

But free movement of European citizens is part of EU membership. The UK signed the treaty.

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?

Well.. a certain political party in Israel has just gained an awful lot of power. The leader of said party has strongly suggested that dropping nukes on enemy territory would be a nice final solution to Israels problems. Blowing up shopping malls was another suggestion of his.

But free movement of European citizens is part of EU membership. The UK signed the treaty.

I did say "within reason", did I not?

I did address your point.

In what possible way?

I've talked to people who have. Apparently it opens overlaying the 9/11 attacks with a picture of the Koran. And iirc Mr Wilders has in the past said the Koran was on a par with Mein Kampf.

I don't agree with him being banned, but he should never have been invited in the first place.

But, you've never seen it yourself. Considering that it's available on the Internet, costs nothing to download, and if the assertions are as weak as claimed should be easily countered, one wonders why someone who hasn't seen it, has an opinion on it.

I did say "within reason", did I not?

Yes. So when is denying entry to a politician with seats in the government of another EU country, a specific country you in addition have long standing close ties with, "within reason" ?

Banning politicians (whatever their politics) of another country, especially a friendly country from your own is a serious insult to their country of origin. I'm surprised the Dutch government isn't up in arms over this.

As for the man himself, I'm inclined to let him have his say. My years on NSG have taught me that the best way to deal with nazi and fascists is to challenge their views in a civil debate, where they can be comprehensively shown up for the morons that they are. Banning this guy only spreads his notoriety and allows him to claim the moral high ground.

Yes. So when is denying entry to a politician with seats in the government of another EU country, a specific country you in addition have long standing close ties with, "within reason" ?

Being a politician is completely irrelevant to him being treated differently by the Courts.

The Courts would take the case on it's merits - a citizen with views that could cause violence and inflame hatred in the state. That's all there is to it.

Yes. So when is denying entry to a politician with seats in the government of another EU country, a specific country you in addition have long standing close ties with, "within reason" ?

I believe the justification is that he is a security and crime risk. IIRC the British government have refused entry to about a hundred "preachers of hate" over the years.

But free movement of European citizens is part of EU membership. The UK signed the treaty.

There's some public security clause loophole that they're invoking.


It was done by Muslims, in the name of Islam, so fair enough.
A lot of people do things claiming they do it in the name of something. If you took them at their word then just about every thing in the world ever would be tarnished


They're both Jew-bashing and call for genocide, so that's a decent comparison.
No it doesn't actually. Or at the very least it's a heavily disputed question.

But, you've never seen it yourself. Considering that it's available on the Internet, costs nothing to download, and if the assertions are as weak as claimed should be easily countered, one wonders why someone who hasn't seen it, has an opinion on it.
Because I've talked to someone who has seen it and am familiar with the gist if not the details. I also know of Wilders' general philosophy. So I have no interest in watching it, but know enough (imho) to have an opinion on it.


Banning politicians (whatever their politics) of another country, especially a friendly country from your own is a serious insult to their country of origin. I'm surprised the Dutch government isn't up in arms over this.

I think they hate him more than we do.

btw, I believe he intends to try and come anyway.

There's some public security clause loophole that they're invoking.

Just to expand, I imagine it's this:


Treaty Establishing the European Community: Title III; Free movement of persons, services and capital - Article 39 (ex Article 48)

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

Banning politicians (whatever their politics) of another country, especially a friendly country from your own is a serious insult to their country of origin. I'm surprised the Dutch government isn't up in arms over this.

As for the man himself, I'm inclined to let him have his say. My years on NSG have taught me that the best way to deal with nazi and fascists is to challenge their views in a civil debate, where they can be comprehensively shown up for the morons that they are. Banning this guy only spreads his notoriety and allows him to claim the moral high ground.

the Dutch government did undertake -some- action, our minister of foreign affairs made a phone call...

---
on the banning itself, I'm against that for two main reasons:
1. although the man is biased when it comes to freedom of speech, it is exactly because of the freedom of speech that the Britons should allow him to enter their nation.
2. with or without Mr. Wilders attending, the movie shall be shown by aforementioned Lord (along with some other movie which name slipped my mind) so banning him won't have the desired effects.

Wilders has stated in reply that he plans to travel to the UK next thursday anyway.
I sincerely hope we set him on fire as soon as he gets off the plane.

I sincerely hope we set him on fire as soon as he gets off the plane.

And that makes you better than him how?

I sincerely hope we set him on fire as soon as he gets off the plane.

arrangements have been made to send him to Gitmo

And that makes you better than him how?
Because I'm not a racist arsehole who promotes hatred of entire ethnic and religious groups on the actions of a few. Tada.

Because I'm not a racist arsehole who promotes hatred of entire ethnic and religious groups on the actions of a few. Tada.

You'd be right, if it was only a few.

You'd be right, if it was only a few.

that's the trouble with terrorists, isn't it?
we don't know how many there are...

You'd be right, if it was only a few.
-_-

We have hundreds of thousands of Muslims in this country but it's not like we're being carbombed all the time etc.

Instead we have an inside job on 7/7 which precisely nobody cared about, followed by another of the same for the non-existant 21/7 attacks. Oh no. I am truly worried about what is happening to this land.

In what possible way?

The silence is deafening.

The silence is deafening.

Sorry, but I'd rather not get dragged into the whole Islam thing again.

Instead we have an inside job on 7/7 which precisely nobody cared about, followed by another of the same for the non-existant 21/7 attacks. Oh no. I am truly worried about what is happening to this land.

I'm not talking about England (or Scotland, remember Glasgow?), but a lot of the Muslim countries, which, obviously, is where most Muslims live. Where the people hate the West, gays, democracy, civil rights etc.

Sorry, but I'd rather not get dragged into the whole Islam thing again.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have piped up with Islamophobic bullshit. Perhaps next time you won't.

But I doubt it.

I'm not talking about England (or Scotland
Oh right...
remember Glasgow?)
Aye, Bollard 1, very lame attack 0
but a lot of the Muslim countries, which, obviously, is where most Muslims live. Where the people hate the West, gays, democracy, civil rights etc.
"The people". I see.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have piped up with Islamophobic bullshit. Perhaps next time you won't.

But I doubt it.

Alright. I'm Islamophobic. I don't deny it. It's a hateful religion, that denies science, hates gay rights, any rights for that matter, and I don't think it should be allowed to exist, but I'll tell you what, I'll try not to talk about Islam in the future. Is that OK?

Alright. I'm Islamophobic. I don't deny it.

That's cool. A lot of people who hate Jews or Muslims or whatever don't like to admit it either and it's big of you that you aren't playing the "What? Me?" game like so many bigots do.

It's a hateful religion, that denies science, hates gay rights, any rights for that matter, and I don't think it should be allowed to exist, but I'll tell you what, I'll try not to talk about Islam in the future. Is that OK?

You're not off to a very promising start. Making unsupported claims is what got you into this mess, remember? Making more won't help.

You're not off to a very promising start. Making unsupported claims is what got you into this mess, remember? Making more won't help.

I'll back it up then. If the Koran is supposedly God's holy word, and is infallible, then that means that evolution didn't happen, the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, there was a worldwide flood etc. There's the denies science part. Here's the anti-gay bits: "Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut." "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes. Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

I'll back it up then.

You can start with explaining how your comment about Jews was in any way relevant to what I said. You said you addressed my point. By all means... back this up.

Yeah... I didn't forget even though you wanted me to.

You can start with explaining how your comment about Jews was in any way relevant to what I said. You said you addressed my point. By all means... back this up.

What was the question again?

What was the question again?

If you conveniently forget what you said a whole 36 posts ago, and are too lazy to read yourself, there's no point in bothering is there?

If you conveniently forget what you said a whole 36 posts ago, and are too lazy to read yourself, there's no point in bothering is there?

No, I forgot your question, but if it's so much of a concern to you, I'll go back and look at it.

Right, I read it. You said he's no better than any Jew hating fascist, to which I replied "how often do Jews blow up buses, planes, towers etc?" What I meant was people who are Islamophobic have more justification than Anti-Semites.

Right, I read it. You said he's no better than any Jew hating fascist, to which I replied "how often do Jews blow up buses, planes, towers etc?" What I meant was people who are Islamophobic have more justification than Anti-Semites.

Right, I didn't think it was relevant, and it wasn't. I don't give a shit how many rationalizations anyone makes for hating Jews or hating Muslims, hating blacks or hating whites, it's bigotry, and nothing more.

The fact that you (an admitted Islamophobic bigot) believe really strongly that you're "justified" in irrational hatred is irrelevant to my point.

I look forward to having this exact same conversation every few dozen posts when you again... 'forget.' Well no, not really, I don't. It's tiresome playing games with your kind.

Because I've talked to someone who has seen it and am familiar with the gist if not the details. I also know of Wilders' general philosophy. So I have no interest in watching it, but know enough (imho) to have an opinion on it.




I think they hate him more than we do.

btw, I believe he intends to try and come anyway.

You've "Talked to someone who's seen it", ah...I see, same person who "familiarized you with his politics"?

I'm not saying that the guy doesn't deserve to be rejected, but it's a good idea to know what you're rejecting first-hand instead of relying on someone's enemies to fill you in first. third-hand or second-hand knowledge is how a lot of Rush Limbaugh Fans form their opinions. When the source is immediately available, it's usually a good check to see if what you've been told about it is true, how much is true, and whether the obnoxious and disgusting bastard has a valid point- preferably before your government signs a "Peace of Paper".

Right, I didn't think it was relevant, and it wasn't.

It is relevant. He isn't the same as any old Jew-basher, because Jews haven't done nearly as much shit as Muslims.

It is relevant. He isn't the same as any old Jew-basher, because Jews haven't done nearly as much shit as Muslims.

See that's funny because I know anti-semites who will disagree with you, and argue that Jews have done much more shit than Muslims, and that therefore it's OK to hate Jews.

Sorry. Not any more convincing from you than it is from them.

Ah, good to know the Hivemind logic still gets trundled out whenever Islam is mentioned.

See that's funny because I know anti-semites who will disagree with you

You're acquainted with more than 1 anti-Semite?

and argue that Jews have done much more shit than Muslims, and that therefore it's OK to hate Jews.

Then they're wrong, but bear in mind, I don't hate all Muslims, just Islam.

Then they're wrong, but bear in mind, I don't hate all Muslims, just Islam.

Wow. That was almost a literal Wilders quote ;)

Wilders is an idiot. He's a xenophobe who gets a tremendous kick out of being in the news. He says he does everything "in the name of free speech", but only his own free speech and not that of others.

Wow. That was almost a literal Wilders quote ;)

And? At least I can admit I'm an Islamophobe.

And?

Just a little nudge back on topic. Not that I expect it to work.

Just a little nudge back on topic. Not that I expect it to work.

Oh, in that case, then Wilders should have been let in, to show his side of the story, but he must have a televised debate with a Muslim cleric.

You've "Talked to someone who's seen it", ah...I see, same person who "familiarized you with his politics"?

I'm not saying that the guy doesn't deserve to be rejected, but it's a good idea to know what you're rejecting first-hand instead of relying on someone's enemies to fill you in first. third-hand or second-hand knowledge is how a lot of Rush Limbaugh Fans form their opinions. When the source is immediately available, it's usually a good check to see if what you've been told about it is true, how much is true, and whether the obnoxious and disgusting bastard has a valid point- preferably before your government signs a "Peace of Paper".

No, I've talked to someone who's seen it. His politics I've gleaned from when he pops up on the news from time to time. I don't have the time or the interest to fully investigate every nutcase who wonders across my radar.

I'll back it up then. If the Koran is supposedly God's holy word, and is infallible, then that means that evolution didn't happen, the Earth was created a few thousand years ago, there was a worldwide flood etc. There's the denies science part. Here's the anti-gay bits: "Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut." "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes. Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

I'm pretty sure the Bible also has verses like that...By your arguments Christianity is also a hateful, bigoted religion. The fact is that you are basing the views of the extremists, who thanks to certain news editors get a lot of air time, to the moderates, who don't get much air time.

I'm pretty sure the majority populations of Indonesia, Egypt, Morroco, the Maldives, Pakistan, Turkey etc don't hate the West.

Utterly deplorable. I cannot understand the motivation behind prohibiting one's speaking or presenting simply because the government disagrees with his sentiments.

I'm pretty sure the Bible also has verses like that...By your arguments Christianity is also a hateful, bigoted religion. The fact is that you are basing the views of the extremists, who thanks to certain news editors get a lot of air time, to the moderates, who don't get much air time.

I'm pretty sure the majority populations of Indonesia, Egypt, Morroco, the Maldives, Pakistan, Turkey etc don't hate the West.

Dubious at best; the New Testament was composed, and certainly compiled, in the years after the sack of the temple at Jerusalem and the Jewish revolt, hence, Paul consciously removed "Christianity" from Judaism to escape Roman cesure and persecution. Not that it worked, since Diocletian and others did a commendable job of suppressing the exclusivist bastards, but the New Testament is a consciously pacifistic work.

The Koran, by contrast, was compiled as an adjunct to Islamic expansion, serving a pre-determined political purpose. Expansion which, I'd like to register, would have been rather less spectacular had it occured at any previous point.

You'd be right, if it was only a few.

Statistically, if 10 million Muslims engaged in suicide bombings, they could potentially kill 1 billion people or more. If half of the Muslims on earth, if at least 500 million did, everyone would be dead. The fact that the earth's population is still growing quite rapidly proves that it's only a few.

Right, I read it. You said he's no better than any Jew hating fascist, to which I replied "how often do Jews blow up buses, planes, towers etc?" What I meant was people who are Islamophobic have more justification than Anti-Semites.

There are a couple problems here.

1) Israel has this strange tendency to destroy large swathes of urban areas with a relative frequency. It does far more damage than its Arab neighbors.

2) Your claim of course is that they are not doing this in "the name of God", but this is really irrelevant. Some of those in Israel's government do believe they are empowered to do so by God, and for others, it's a political issue. In the same way, even though suicide bombers may claim/feel they act in "the name of God", there is generally a political purpose behind suicide bombings. So, while some will try and justify their actions utilizing religion, the actions are still ultimately motivated by other sources.

3) There is no justification for Islamophobia/Anti-Semitism. This is your biggest fallacy, that something irrational can be rational if it is less irrational than something else. Even if you win that there are more irrational things than that which you believe/argue, you're still irrational and your logic should be rejected.

4) The justifications for Islamophobia/Anti-Semitism are actually sadly similar. Anti-Semites created the image of the "large-nosed" "money-grabbing Jew who controlled the economy" to stoke fear and resentment. They struck up fear of racial miscegenation, and the creation of a "lesser breed". Let's be honest with ourselves, there were "economically influential Jews", and there were Jews with "big noses". This is a fact. However, the proportions of these to the amount of Jews there are is incredibly small. Furthermore, traits like these don't deserve hate and annihilation in the first place, it's just what anti-Semites chose to devalorize.

In our present day, the image of the brown-skinned man, with the large bushy beard, yelling "Allahu Akbar" is the new stereotype. There are certainly "terrorists", and certainly some of them are Muslims. But, on the larger scale, there are far more Muslims that do not fit these stereotypes or engage in violence. It's the same situation with the same fallacies and same hate, but with different prejudices.

Statistically, if 10 million Muslims engaged in suicide bombings, they could potentially kill 1 billion people or more. If half of the Muslims on earth, if at least 500 million did, everyone would be dead. The fact that the earth's population is still growing quite rapidly proves that it's only a few.

Yeah it's pretty telling that out of 1 billion Muslims, this list (http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/consolidatedlist.htm) is what, maybe a few hundred, maybe a thousand? So like about 0.0001% of all Muslims.

From this some people judge the other 99.9999%.

I'm pretty sure the Bible also has verses like that...By your arguments Christianity is also a hateful, bigoted religion.

If Christians would follow the Bible completely and literally it sure as hell would be, yes. But, according to Wilders, not incompatible with western values.

Oh, in that case, then Wilders should have been let in, to show his side of the story, but he must have a televised debate with a Muslim cleric.

That would be a debate worth watching-provided you could get the greasy politician to actually show up.

No, I've talked to someone who's seen it. His politics I've gleaned from when he pops up on the news from time to time. I don't have the time or the interest to fully investigate every nutcase who wonders across my radar.

So, basically, you know NOTHING about the guy other than what his opponents told you. Interesting.

And a news update: it is rumoured that the airline company "British Midlands" has canceled Wilders ticket due to being unwilling to transport him to a country where he is not welcome.

The editorial of prestigious British newspaper "The Times" on the other hand is pleading for him being allowed to enter the country.

So, basically, you know NOTHING about the guy other than what his opponents told you. Interesting.

If by his "opponents" you mean a range of mainstream media stories which included quotes from the man himself, then yes.

How do you know his video's bullshit? Have you even seen it?
Unless Mr. Wilders has had a radical and surprising change of heart, we can assume it is more of the same islamophobic nonsense. I don't need to have seen it personally to know it to be unlikely to be suitable for display in Parliament. It would be no different if David Irwin suddenly announced that he had a video demonstrating his politics and was invited to display it in Parliament.

Utterly deplorable. I cannot understand the motivation behind prohibiting one's speaking or presenting simply because the government disagrees with his sentiments.
I'd be interested to know who made this decision, whether it was the Cabinet as a whole, the Home Secretary or a bureaucrat in the Home Office.

Unless Mr. Wilders has had a radical and surprising change of heart, we can assume it is more of the same islamophobic nonsense. I don't need to have seen it personally to know it to be unlikely to be suitable for display in Parliament. It would be no different if David Irwin suddenly announced that he had a video demonstrating his politics and was invited to display it in Parliament.


I'd be interested to know who made this decision, whether it was the Cabinet as a whole, the Home Secretary or a bureaucrat in the Home Office.

As would I. I'm all for Wilders showing his video to the Lords, just so he can be laughed out of Parliament. You know, have all his points refuted.

As would I. I'm all for Wilders showing his video to the Lords, just so he can be laughed out of Parliament. You know, have all his points refuted.

Oh, I don't know. I mean - Wilders is being denied access because it is feared there will be bombings, attacks and so on. That strongly suggest some fear that Wilders is right with his portrayal of Islam.

Oh, I don't know. I mean - Wilders is being denied access because it is feared there will be bombings, attacks and so on. That strongly suggest some fear that Wilders is right with his portrayal of Islam.


Or that they used a loophole to keep him out.

If by his "opponents" you mean a range of mainstream media stories which included quotes from the man himself, then yes.

Considering that it's apparently mainstream in Europe to apologize to radicals who threaten to kill a cartoonist over a picture of their Prophet? That it's mainstream in England, apparently, for Muslims to distribute "How to be a suicide bomber" videos on disk? (both were fairly prominent news items a couple years ago.)

Rioting over a Cartoon is acceptable, a video showing quotes from the Qu'ran overlaid with political speeches and acts of terror isn't?

Sure,it's agitprop, but most of what passes for "news" by "Mainstream" sources is also Agitprop, if you're aware of the source and its agenda, and you agree or disagree, you're already immune.

Considering that David-Duke's book is still a best-seller in the Middle east, or that when I was in Saudi in '93 they had multiple sellers in the Bazaar in Dharan distributing Mein Kampf in german, english, AND arabic? Not a hard stretch to ask if Wilders, even though he's a reactionary idiot, might have a point.

Or that they used a loophole to keep him out.

Of course - but that is not their official statement. If Wilders would have had any intelligence whatsoever he would have embraced the official reason to keep him out and use it for propaganda. "See - the Brits also think muslims are a security threat".

But hey - if he had brains, Fitna would not have been a shoddy powerpoint presentation either.

And update: Wilders is moving towards da plane :p
Update II: Wilders is in the air.

How often do Jews blew up buses, planes, towers etc?

About once a year.


You'd be right, if it was only a few.?

If it wasn't, hardly a European city would be without a bomb a day, plus a few shootings.


I'll tell you what, I'll try not to talk about Islam in the future. Is that OK?
.?

A suggestion par excellence.


Oh, in that case, then Wilders should have been let in, to show his side of the story, but he must have a televised debate with a Muslim cleric.
.?

Breaching your undertaking I see.

Utterly deplorable. I cannot understand the motivation behind prohibiting one's speaking or presenting simply because the government disagrees with his sentiments..?

They did to a few muslim preachers, yer man Farrakhan.....

Living in the Netherlands, I have actually seen fitna. Its a mindless piece of drivel. In fact, i send Wilders letter asking for my 20 mins back.
Fitna is such an incredbly bad piece of propaganda, i could have done a better job in an afternoon.

Maybe being banned from england wil finally make the 'man' think for a change, it would do my country a world of good.

I'd be interested to know who made this decision, whether it was the Cabinet as a whole, the Home Secretary or a bureaucrat in the Home Office.

I'd say Jacqui Smith personally, vile woman that she is.

Oh, I don't know. I mean - Wilders is being denied access because it is feared there will be bombings, attacks and so on. That strongly suggest some fear that Wilders is right with his portrayal of Islam.

Stop reaching - it suggests security trumps hate speech.

Stop reaching - it suggests security trumps hate speech.

And WHY would there be a security issue ?
Exactly.

As I said - if Wilders had half a brain, he could have used this for amazingly effective propaganda. Fortunately, he lacks even that.

EDIT: And it seems Wilders has been arrested in England; though other sources claim he is merely being detained by customs.
How nice.

Oh, I don't know. I mean - Wilders is being denied access because it is feared there will be bombings, attacks and so on. That strongly suggest some fear that Wilders is right with his portrayal of Islam.

Or, you know, they're afraid he'll provoke people into killing Muslims. Yeah, I know, it's totally out there.

Or, you know, they're afraid he'll provoke people into killing Muslims. Yeah, I know, it's totally out there.

I am frankly quite amazed by the inability of so many people here to see how propaganda would work and instead reply to the statement itself.

Quite scary.

Or, you know, they're afraid he'll provoke people into killing Muslims. Yeah, I know, it's totally out there.

I somehow doubt that a private screening of Fitna at the House of Lords is going to whip the peers into a frothing-at-the-mouth berserker rage. The few British people who would actually consider killing Muslims weren't at the screening and wouldn't have met Mr Wilders even if he hadn't been turned back at Immigration. I don't see any reason why the visit would have provoked British nationalist extremists out of their usual irrelevance, especially as it would probably have received no publicity if Mr Wilders hadn't been banned from the country. On the other hand, we have in recent years seen threatening protests in Britain by Muslim radicals. Does the slogan "behead those who insult Islam" ring any bells? Only a minority, of course, but if Mr Wilders' speech posed a security threat, that threat would probably be from Muslim radicals rather than British racists.

Or, you know, they're afraid he'll provoke people into killing Muslims. Yeah, I know, it's totally out there.

Hardly. The BNP would have to drag themselves away from their terribly worthwhile picket lines at strikes to do so. Moreover, the film would have been, and will be, shown in the house of Lords; at best a few narked Muslims would have assembled outside and been very upset at Mr. Wilder.

This smacks of appeasement and courting the Muslim vote to me.

Yeah TBC, you know what Britain really needs? Foreigners spreading propaganda in its parliament. That seems to me a good use of your government's time. Can we march Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter or Michael Moore through the House of Lords too, so they could show cute little films? I mean you're fine with that, right?

Or are you just whining because you agree with Wilder and you're disappointed.

Yeah TBC, you know what Britain really needs? Foreigners spreading propaganda in its parliament. That seems to me a good use of your government's time. Can we march Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter or Michael Moore through the House of Lords too, so they could show cute little films? I mean you're fine with that, right?

Or are you just whining because you agree with Wilder and you're disappointed.

Oh yes, absolutely. In fact, I must say I'm lacrimose with grief that I couln't join the baying hordes of closet racists you percieve round every corner.

Frankly, the Lords are entitled to do as they please in the interests of free discourse; strangely, I trust their judgement, and assume that the film, and following debate, might just have served some political purpose.

Frankly, the Lords are entitled to do as they please in the interests of free discourse; strangely, I trust their judgement, and assume that the film, and following debate, might just have served some political purpose.

It's not the Lords place to decide what is and is not a matter of public security or public order. It is the government (i.e the Home Secretary)

Oh yes, absolutely. In fact, I must say I'm lacrimose with grief that I couln't join the baying hordes of closet racists you percieve round every corner.


You really should run a spell-check before you start blurting out the big words in a vain attempt to impress me.


Frankly, the Lords are entitled to do as they please in the interests of free discourse; strangely, I trust their judgement, and assume that the film, and following debate, might just have served some political purpose.

Well, so will Michael Moore's. It's settled then. From now on, the House of Lords do nothing but watch films that "might" serve "some" political purpose.

I somehow doubt that a private screening of Fitna at the House of Lords is going to whip the peers into a frothing-at-the-mouth berserker rage. The few British people who would actually consider killing Muslims weren't at the screening and wouldn't have met Mr Wilders even if he hadn't been turned back at Immigration. I don't see any reason why the visit would have provoked British nationalist extremists out of their usual irrelevance, especially as it would probably have received no publicity if Mr Wilders hadn't been banned from the country. On the other hand, we have in recent years seen threatening protests in Britain by Muslim radicals. Does the slogan "behead those who insult Islam" ring any bells? Only a minority, of course, but if Mr Wilders' speech posed a security threat, that threat would probably be from Muslim radicals rather than British racists.
Allowing Wilders to show his film in Parliament would give his extremeist islamophobic views credibility. I have no problem with his being here (there are plenty of his ilk here already) but he should not be allowed in Parliament.

Fitna is pretty tame anyway, it's no way near as bad as what a lot of people on NSG have said for instance. Absolutely absurd grounds for detaining him.

Frankly, the Lords are entitled to do as they please in the interests of free discourse; strangely, I trust their judgement, and assume that the film, and following debate, might just have served some political purpose.
Actually, they aren't. Parliament isn't a free cinema that Lords can use at their pleasure. The Lords would be better off turning up (a radical idea for half of them) and unpicking government legislation than debating the rantings of a lunatic.

It's not the Lords place to decide what is and is not a matter of public security or public order. It is the government (i.e the Home Secretary)

Irrelevent. If the government can't provide good judgement, which it can't, the Lords must.

Allowing Wilders to show his film in Parliament would give his extremeist islamophobic views credibility. I have no problem with his being here (there are plenty of his ilk here already) but he should not be allowed in Parliament.

I don't think it would give the views in the film credibility, although it would recognise that it represents one side in a debate on Islam that should be allowed to take place. The film screening was designed to provoke debate, and any debate by more reasonable members of the House of Lords would have revealed Mr Wilders as what he is: an extremist.

The choice by the Home Office to bar Mr Wilders from the country, on the other hand, confers a good deal of credibility on him while making the government look bad. Mr Wilders has been able to cast himself as a hero of free speech (ironic given his stated desire to ban the Koran), and the government's action only strengthens the popular right-wing view that the government is appeasing Muslims at the expense of civil liberties.

I don't think it would give the views in the film credibility, although it would recognise that it represents one side in a debate on Islam that should be allowed to take place. The film screening was designed to provoke debate, and any debate by more reasonable members of the House of Lords would have revealed Mr Wilders as what he is: an extremist.
As I've already said, the House of Lords has got far better things to be doing with its time than debating whatever video anyone wants to display there. (In any case, I doubt the leadership would really allow it in the unlikely event it were demanded). I don't really think that a debate on whether Islam is fascism or whether the Koran ought to be banned is genuinely necessary, and don't want to gove the impression that there is any kind of merit to the arguments he uses or that Members of Parliament are in agreement with him. You don't need to wina debate to make your views seem acceptable and mainstream.

The choice by the Home Office to bar Mr Wilders from the country, on the other hand, confers a good deal of credibility on him while making the government look bad. Mr Wilders has been able to cast himself as a hero of free speech (ironic given his stated desire to ban the Koran), and the government's action only strengthens the popular right-wing view that the government is appeasing Muslims at the expense of civil liberties.
We are both in agreement here.

As I've already said, the House of Lords has got far better things to be doing with its time than debating whatever video anyone wants to display there. (In any case, I doubt the leadership would really allow it in the unlikely event it were demanded). I don't really think that a debate on whether Islam is fascism or whether the Koran ought to be banned is genuinely necessary, and don't want to gove the impression that there is any kind of merit to the arguments he uses or that Members of Parliament are in agreement with him. You don't need to wina debate to make your views seem acceptable and mainstream.


Most of the members of the House of Lords would probably agree with you, given the low attendance at the screening. Although they do seem to have quite a lot of free time on their hands anyway, despite their governmental duties: they may as well use it to watch films. A narrow debate on whether Islam is fascism is obviously unnecessary: however, a wider debate on the role of religion in society, the potential clash of the right to free speech against the right to religion, and the threat of Islamic (and other religious) extremism, seems to me extremely valuable, and to block extremists such as Mr Wilders (and indeed an extremist Muslim or two) from that debate will actually make it less convincing, as people will think that they have not been represented and that the government has ordered a whitewash.

I am frankly quite amazed by the inability of so many people here to see how propaganda would work and instead reply to the statement itself.

Quite scary.

In my defense I have the flu and parts of my body that lack nerve endings are hurting so I'm not exactly going to be picking up on subtleties today. But yeah I horribly misread your post and responded stupidly.

Islamophobia and odious right wing politics aside,the issue at stake here is freedom of speech by anyone whether we agree with what is said or not."I passionately disagree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Oscar Wilde

In my defense I have the flu and parts of my body that lack nerve endings are hurting so I'm not exactly going to be picking up on subtleties today. But yeah I horribly misread your post and responded stupidly.

Since you were not the only one, I am in fact not convinced that the problem did not lie with me ;)

However, we shall see what Wilders does and how the propaganda machine will function in the coming days.

"The Brits" hardly seems an appropriate term for the UK government. The party that gets voted in is simply the least disliked one, in my experience.

Since you were not the only one, I am in fact not convinced that the problem did not lie with me ;)


Either the flu's worse than I thought or that sentence is really hard to parse.

Can a European country deny access to citizens of other European countries ?
Is advocating a controversial opinion sufficient reason to ban someone ?

It was reason enough for Austria to ban David Irving.

How predictable.

Christians are Being Oppressed By Muslims So We Should Ban Muslims Too! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4614195/If-Geert-Wilders-is-denied-entry-to-Britain-what-of-those-who-oppress-Christians.html)

How predictable.

Christians are Being Oppressed By Muslims So We Should Ban Muslims Too! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/4614195/If-Geert-Wilders-is-denied-entry-to-Britain-what-of-those-who-oppress-Christians.html)

"SIR – Islam, which has survived mendacious attacks through centuries, will never be dwarfed by the opinion of a maverick politician. A democracy like Britain must never compromise the inalienable right of people to free speech, no matter how offensive their opinions.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London SW5"

Do explain this away in typically abrasive, tedious style. Please do, I could do with a laugh.

"SIR – Islam, which has survived mendacious attacks through centuries, will never be dwarfed by the opinion of a maverick politician. A democracy like Britain must never compromise the inalienable right of people to free speech, no matter how offensive their opinions.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London SW5"

Do explain this away in typically abrasive, tedious style. Please do, I could do with a laugh.


Obviously the Doctor understands what's really at stake here better than those spineless jerkwads in the Home Office do.

One of the fundamental virtues of FREE SPEECH is that it enables Fools to expose themselves AS SUCH, bringing the cleansing sunlight of exposure to what would otherwise fester and grow in obscurity.

Obviously the Doctor understands what's really at stake here better than those spineless jerkwads in the Home Office do.

One of the fundamental virtues of FREE SPEECH is that it enables Fools to expose themselves AS SUCH, bringing the cleansing sunlight of exposure to what would otherwise fester and grow in obscurity.

I agree with you. Wholly. I'm just interested as to how Trostia will reconcile his typically unjustified self-satisfied tone with the content of the article he cites.

"SIR – Islam, which has survived mendacious attacks through centuries, will never be dwarfed by the opinion of a maverick politician. A democracy like Britain must never compromise the inalienable right of people to free speech, no matter how offensive their opinions.

Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London SW5"

Do explain this away in typically abrasive, tedious style. Please do, I could do with a laugh.

Explain what away - your inability to make a point? Your inability to respond when anyone does reply to your baiting? There's nothing to do, and you're obviously not here for discussion, so how about I simply refrain from indulging your pompous imbecility instead?

Explain what away - your inability to make a point? Your inability to respond when anyone does reply to your baiting? There's nothing to do, and you're obviously not here for discussion, so how about I simply refrain from indulging your pompous imbecility instead?

Ahaha. You're still not addressing the point I'd rather hoped you'd appreciate implicitly; you interpret one letter as representative of something wider, then fail to provide due moderation to reflect the content of the link.

Ahaha. You're still not addressing the point

You ignore whole posts when they disagree with you. I see no reason to give you an extra courtesy by responding to every piece of snark you spew out here, when you'll cheerily ignore any and all such responses as your comically egotistical whim decrees.

Simply put, your behavior in this thread alone warrants no such respect as that.

I'd rather hoped you'd appreciate implicitly; you interpret one letter as representative of something wider, then fail to provide due moderation to reflect the content of the link.

The title and headline - the alarmist, xenophobic and frankly laughably insecure sentiment behind it - was and remains ridiculous. Nothing you said contradicts that. Maybe you have that funny blindness that prevents you from seeing replies to your posts, but also from reading them? Huh. Weird.

You ignore whole posts when they disagree with you. I see no reason to give you an extra courtesy by responding to every piece of snark you spew out here, when you'll cheerily ignore any and all such responses as your comically egotistical whim decrees.

Simply put, your behavior in this thread alone warrants no such respect as that.



The title and headline - the alarmist, xenophobic and frankly laughably insecure sentiment behind it - was and remains ridiculous. Nothing you said contradicts that. Maybe you have that funny blindness that prevents you from seeing replies to your posts, but also from reading them? Huh. Weird.

You really are quite miffed I forgot to respond to a post of yours aren't you? Bless you, that really is quite sweet.

You really are quite miffed I forgot to respond to a post of yours aren't you? Bless you, that really is quite sweet.

It does make it difficult for you to carry on the play-acting that you're here to discuss or debate anything, when you're just here to throw poop. It also makes your poop less convincingly anything other than poop.

You really should run a spell-check before you start blurting out the big words in a vain attempt to impress me.



Well, so will Michael Moore's. It's settled then. From now on, the House of Lords do nothing but watch films that "might" serve "some" political purpose.

I'll disregard the first point in as much as I see no reason to compete with you on pedantry.

Regarding the second, I fear you've simply missed the point; if the admittedly odd Lord Pearson sees fit, with colleagues, to show said film for the purposes of debate, and I support this, this is not coterminous with my advocating the Lords become a cinema. Although it would be comfy at least.

The less orthodox expedients the Lords use in discussion can do no harm, and would certainly offer an opinion different from the obseiquiance the commons offer.

Do you genuinely believe that electoral appeasement cloaked in the pretext of "public order" should circumscribe our right to freedom of expression?

LOL!

"Electoral appeasement"

Wonderful new term for "democracy"!

LOL!

"Electoral appeasement"

Wonderful new term for "democracy"!

Honestly, this does strike me as an attempt by New Labour to appease the Islamic voters disaffected so much with Labour in 2003.

Honestly, this does strike me as an attempt by New Labour to appease the Islamic voters disaffected so much with Labour in 2003.

I doubt that it's really worth their while for 3% of the electorate. And that's assuming all of them vote, and are swing voters.

I doubt that it's really worth their while for 3% of the electorate. And that's assuming all of them vote, and are swing voters.

Authoritarian policies also tend to be rather popular with the "silent majority", whose support Labour do risk losing in the current economic climate.

Wilders? Meh. As far as marginally sane extremist politicians go, Zhirinovsky and Niyazov were much more amusing.

[Anyway: Blah blah free speech blah blah injustice blah, but blah blah compromise blah blah security reasons blah.]

Authoritarian policies also tend to be rather popular with the "silent majority", whose support Labour do risk losing in the current economic climate.

In which case all the political parties would do it. Why take Labour to task for it?

Good to see you speak up for the silent majority too! They must have been tired of not being heard.

Honestly, this does strike me as an attempt by New Labour to appease the Islamic voters disaffected so much with Labour in 2003.

Or, it's in the same vein as a ban on Yusuf al-Qaradawi this time last year.

In which case all the political parties would do it. Why take Labour to task for it?

Good to see you speak up for the silent majority too! They must have been tired of not being heard.

Ever seen the Sun?

Moreover, the Lib Dems wouldn't advocate attenuation of free speech they're too principled, whilst no Tory leader would be able to do so in a publicised case and survive the internal ruptures it would create.

Or, it's in the same vein as a ban on Yusuf al-Qaradawi this time last year.

Quite why it needs the same motivation is beyond me. An authoritarian dispostion and cynical attempt to seize all possible voters, irrespective of principle, are not mutually exclusive.

Ever seen the Sun?

I was told never to look directly at it, or I would go blind. Especially page 3.

Moreover, the Lib Dems wouldn't advocate attenuation of free speech they're too principled, whilst no Tory leader would be able to do so in a publicised case and survive the internal ruptures it would create.

These things have a habit of changing when you're in power. It's easy to be principled in opposition.

whilst no Tory leader would be able to do so in a publicised case and survive the internal ruptures it would create.

Uhhhh....

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a controversial Muslim cleric who defends suicide attacks, has been refused a visa to enter to the UK after a campaign by David Cameron.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3325439.ece

Uhhhh....


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3325439.ece

Which is my point; predicated upon a personal belief that the current Tory party just aren't Tory. No real Tory party, or leader, would have acted thus.

I was told never to look directly at it, or I would go blind. Especially page 3.



These things have a habit of changing when you're in power. It's easy to be principled in opposition.

Another failure of David Cameron's then.

Which is my point; predicated upon a personal belief that the current Tory party just aren't Tory. No real Tory party, or leader, would have acted thus.

Populism isn't the 'real' ideology of any major British party. It certainly is the reality of both major modern parties. Labour didn't get elected in 97 by embracing traditional socialism and the Conservatives won't get elected at the next election by embracing traditional Conservatism.

I doubt that it's really worth their while for 3% of the electorate. And that's assuming all of them vote, and are swing voters.

It's not for them. Its for the percent of British voters who almost never come into contact with a Muslim, but are desperate not to be viewed as tainted by racism or ethnocentrism or some other 'ism' that's basically used as a political slur when it isn't really present, except in some really skeezy little knot of headline grabbers like the BNP, that average-voters will turn against regardless of what they do (and hold others as guilty by association with when it's convenient) because of HOW skeezy they are.

In this case, Labour bans Wilders, so that they can say "See, we're not liking his lot one bit! Honest!!" while Britons continue fighting the REAL muslim extremists in Afghanistan, the guys who really want to do what Wilders claims all muslims want to do-but the theatre in this case isn't playing to honest-to-allah real-live British Muslims, it's playing to people who've found it fashionable to pretend that they like Muslims.

Populism isn't the 'real' ideology of any major British party. It certainly is the reality of both major modern parties. Labour didn't get elected in 97 by embracing traditional socialism and the Conservatives won't get elected at the next election by embracing traditional Conservatism.

I live in hope.

How do you know his video's bullshit? Have you even seen it?

I have. Its exactly what the OP and Trostia described it as.