Dutch MP Geert Wilders has made no secret of his belief that Islam is incompatible with western society, and has advocated strong measures to counter what he sees as the dangerous spread of Islam, going so far as to liken the Koran to Mein Kampf. Needless to say, Wilders has caused much contoversy and has received numerous death threats. After escaping hate-speech charges numerous times in the past, he is once again facing legal sanctions.
One British MP, Lord Nazir Ahmed, has called this “a victory for the Muslim community.”
Questions for debate: Is this decision the right one? Non-UKers, would you support banning Wilders from your country? Do you agree that this is a victory for the Muslim community in the UK? How about for the UK/europe as a whole?
My own, admittedly American, take is that it is a disaster for the Muslim community in the UK, as it makes plausible the suggestion that they do not share western ideas of free expression and democratic debate – one of the very things Wilders alleges.
It is a also a disaster for the the UK as a whole. By invoking “public security” concerns, the suggestion is that Wilder’s visit might result violence. This may be so, but it is essential to note that Wilders has (AFAIK) never advocated violence against Muslims at any time. He has made policy prescriptions and voiced opinions that many, including myself, find extreme, but that nonetheless reflect the views of a significant fraction of the Dutch people (or else he and his party would win no seats). To stifle his speech because his opponents threaten violence is to cede public discourse, and to encourage more threats and possibly actual violence.
It would appear that our Dutch friends want everyone to play nice, and are smacking down anyone who may cause the bad men to come in and start shooting up innocent burghermiesters.
Yeah big surprise , the home office has decided that the home town dhimmies need protecting, but the UK is a soverign nation and like other countries can ban folks as desired.
Its a victory for the muslims, straight up. They applied leverage based on what they might do and the home office caved. Basically this is going to be a situation where two rights cause a wrong. Kosovo was not that long ago, I dont think alot of people would have problems with a pogrom of Muslims in the future.
They win some , they lose some.
Europe seems to be the one place where they do get a more or less nuanced handling. For every thing Wilder says, ten more people are probably saying the same thing or worse and don’t get air time, then you probably have another twenty people silently agreeing with him , but are more savvy enough to speak politically correct.
The thing is that Euros are basically facists at heart, they love nothing more than good old law and order, and while they may have intergration problems, its no more than any other nation that takes in foreigners.
When someone like Wilder says what he says, you can relegate him to the looney paranoid fringe like Fred Phelps and David Duke, but woe betide your house is not in order.
It took till the Independent site before I recognised a source. (My fault - I didn’t see the ‘Radio Netherlands Worldwide’ bit, only the web address which I didn’t recognise).
It’s very odd.
These seem to be the legal reasonings:
Something to do with him being under a 24 hour guard, maybe? But, as an elected official, he should be allowed in nonetheless.
It’s sad, really. In the past, if the British wanted to prevent a riot they’d send a bunch of tall men in tall blue helmet who’d say"Right, move along then," and there’s be no riot. There was no need to “preserve public harmony,” because they had the law - and it was the law, and not fear of the mob that ruled Britain.
Nowadays, it seems as though the UK’s motto has been changed to “Don’t Rock the Boat.”
While I diagree with pretty much everything Wilders says, I think it is extremely important to let him say what he wants to. The biggest reason why this kind of politician (with hard uncomprimisable opinions) has become popular in the Netherlands is that it was deemed politically incorrect to have any qualms with the multicultural society in the past. Helas, many people do feel threatened by the Turkisch and Morroccan minorities - and in all honesty, walking through one of these innercitu areas does give you an inkling why - and want to have somebaody to raise this issue (albeit in a harsh maner).
Back to the OP; Wilders is an elected parlematarian of a fellow EU country that has been invited by one of the democratic institutions of Great Britain. He has a pasport, is not wanted for any crime…I don’t see how they can deny him entry.
BTW He is actually planning on going anyway, so it will be interesting to see what will happen.
And yet Wilders is leader of a significant political party and is still free to say whatever he wants in public as long as he keeps within the law. At the same time the Netherlands has some restrictions on inflammatory speech and it’s very possible Wilders will be tried to figure out if he’s crossed the line - note that if that happens, it’s not at all clear he’ll be convicted.
IMO we in the Netherlands could do with a few less restrictions on speech, but I’m far from the only one arguing that. Wilders himself has always argued that he’s keeping within the law and I’m quite sure he’s at least trying to do that.
He’s currently facing jail-time for killing a motorist while txting on the motorway - under potential forthcoming legislation this could lead to his removal from the House of Lords.
He’s not typical of British muslims, and represent the worst excesses of militant Islam.
He’s the equivalent to Jerry Fallwell or Pat Robertson - in the same way that otherwise sensible US policiticians pay attention to Rush Limbaugh, the British establishment give him airtime. But 99% of the British public would have no idea who he is if you showed them a photo.
And as if to prove the craven submission of the UK “dhimmis” to the howling Mussulman hordes, the self-same legislation was used early in 2008 to ban leading Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qardawi, who has defended suicide attacks on Israelis. Truly, we cower in fear of violence.
Which just goes to prove my point - the British weren’t afraid of rioting in the past. You survived them through the proper application of law and order, not by appeasing the mob.
That would be true if none of those riots had been followed by a change in public policy, and/or if the “proper application of law and order” hadn’t all too often amounted to state repression of public protest. “Reading the Riot Act” was no hollow expression - once read aloud, it gave the police the authority to shoot rioters, or ride them down in cavalry charges.
In any case, the premise that this is an act of political cowardice bears some examination. As I’ve said, the same legislation has been used to ban Yusuf al-Qardawi which makes the idea that the UK is capitulating to radical Islam a little less tenable. Nor has it been shown that the “threat to community harmony” is in fact a riot. It’s quite conceivable that the threat they’re worried about is BNP loons pouring petrol through the letterboxes of Muslim homes, or throwing stones at women in hijabs.
Don’t get me wrong - my preference would be see both Wilders and al-Qardawi allowed in to speak (as much as anything because the Internet makes these bans effectively worthless), but the suggestion that the ban is motivated out of a new-found fear of mob rule is one that would be more beleivable if it had any basis in evidence.
He seeks to ban anti-islamic speakers from parliament, yet hosts a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-semitic author Israel Shamir (aka Jöran Jermas).
If it walks like a duck…
And I have no problem with banning Wilders from the UK - he’s should crawl back under his rock and leave us alone.
It does debate no favours if you lump people like him in with the exploding type of Islamist. Anti-semitism, real or imagined is not terrorism and it cheapens the debate to not make that distinction.
