Despite the fact that it dominated the airwaves all day yesterday, the subject of freedom of speech vis-à-vis Geert Wilders is by no means exhausted. Of all the coverage in the mainstream media, the BBC didn’t come out too badly. The best of a bad lot. Sky made a great fuss about airports, planes landing and Wilders on an escalator, but it amounted to little. What I saw of Channel 4 was pathetic. The BBC had the most memorable moment. It had to be Miliband, after condemning this vile hateful deliberately provocative film, with exquisite Comedy Timing, admitting that he hadn’t seen it.
Several things struck me about the whole media coverage fiasco.
1. Hardly anyone brought up Lord Ahmed’s disgraceful threat to mobilise ten thousand Muslims if Wilders was allowed in, and no-one at all alluded to him crowing about this ‘victory for Muslims’ to the Pakistani press.
2. All the people who were speaking in support of Wilders, Baroness Cox, Lord Pearson, and co., did so in the name of free speech; they were all
oh-so-careful to insist that they ‘did not agree with him’, giving the impression that they disagreed entirely with his views on Islam, rather than the more nuanced disagreement I assume they meant. (that the Koran should be banned altogether)
3. All this potential violence that is waiting to be unleashed. – Who by?” Is it to be “Islamophobic” violence against Muslims stirred up by the film, perpetrated by those violent Jews and gays? Or is it violence by members of the religion of peace, enraged at criticism of the very Jihadi extremists they are supposed to disapprove of?
The content of Fitna was repeatedly described as ‘shots of horrific acts of violence juxtaposed with selected Koranic verses’. “Revolting!” “Repulsive!”
In the light of the loudly proclaimed assurance by Lord Ahmed that every single word of the Koran has equal importance and is of vital significance, I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace. Furthermore, footage of ranting mullahs and suicide bombers which furnished the most undeniable examples of incitement to hatred and violence in the film were largely overlooked.
4. As for Salma Yaqoob, the only member of last night’s QT panel who actually spoke up for Geert’s visit, (in the name of free speech, naturally,) and the member of the Quilliam Foundation, I think it was Maajid Nawaz, who spoke in a similar vein in another programme, I can’t help feeling that they were not being entirely honest. I suspect that if they hadn’t known that Geert Wilders had already been safely and securely sent packing, they would have been singing a different tune. But taking advantage of the moral high ground from a position of safety by pretending to be magnanimous wasn’t very convincing.
5. Have they banned Hizb-ut Tahrir yet?
Thank you
I can’t help feeling that they were not being entirely honest. I suspect that if they hadn’t known that Geert Wilders had already been safely and securely sent packing, they would have been singing a different tune.
Then you really don’t know them very well!
as a boy i heard the following endlessly spouted by leftists around the world,,,
“i dont agree with what you say, but ill defend to the death,,blah blah blah.
isnt it odd that now the left has decided that free speech must be curtailed that old chestnut has been left on the ground.
back when the left was not in power thier free cpeech was vital, now ummm its not so important is it???
Last night on Newsnight Kirsty Wark, unusually, did a good job on this, but did not not mention (and neither did any of the guests) the real threat, not from Wilders, but from Ahmed within the UK. As usual the broadcast media not giving all the facts. This from Spectator Coffee House sums it up:
“If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders a few hours ago 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”
Well said Sue.
For the first time in my life I am truly ashamed to live in this country.
I will not try to expand on the detail of this outrage, I am too angry to make sense.
If I could apologise to our ancestors for the disgraceful squandering of the heritage they fought for and built, I would do so with a bitterly disappointed heart.
God help us now and in the future because we now seem incapable of producing leaders of any worth whatsoever.
FS
This article in The Telegraph by Philip Johnston worth reading
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
sue
I think you’re right the BBC did a decent job across its coverage.
I thought the BBC news at 10 last night was rather trite and didn’t focus on freedom of speech – which is the absolute nub of this issue.
Susan Franklin is right though that Newsnight provided excellent coverage. The panel comprised Vaz, someone from Quilliam, and a dutch cleric of some sort (who seemed sympathetic with Wilders). Basically, the panel and Kirsty Wark turned on Vaz, who really was rather disgraceful and quite chilling (he kept saying to the Quilliam chap “you can go to Holland to debate with Wilders”).
I thought it nailed the issue well and truly, belying perhaps the stock view on this site about Newsnight.
I watched somebody say
“He well be democratically elected , but he wasn’t elected here”
Well so were Hamas but hey how the left changed their tune then.
Protests in London
Attacks on the Police
Numerious articles in the Media.
and there i was thinking that this was all about keeoing the peace in England.
Pity the owners of a certain coffee shop on High St Ken can’t subscribe to that mantra.
Yes, David.
The fear of Islamic-inspired violence pervades the whole mealy-mouthed ‘debate’ on free speech and Labour’s ban on Dutch MP, Geert Wilders.
Hugh Fitzgerald:
“Ian Buruma, Geert Wilders, hatred, and ignorance”
[Extract]:
“And that matter is the 12-minute movie known as Fitna. He, Ian Buruma, never once mentions this movie by name. He mentions only, as if in passing, “a crude short film that depicted Islam as a terrorist faith.” The movie can be found on the Internet. It can be found at this website, for example. It’s not very long. Why not suggest to readers that they take a look at this 12-minute movie themselves, and see just how outrageous, and how hate-filled, it is? The reason is clear. Buruma does not want his readers to discover for themselves the movie Fitna. He doesn’t want them to realize that the movie does not consist of hate-filled rants against Islam and Muslims by Geert Wilders. No, what it consists of is hate-filled rants against non-Muslims, Infidels, by Muslims. It consists, save for a single pointed question at the end, entirely of passages from Islamic texts, shown on screen, and then shown being spoken our shouted by imams, and then the activities of Muslims around the world, following the spirit and in some cases the letter of those passages, are shown • all of it consists of what Muslims read and say and do, and none of it comes from Geert Wilders.” (by Hugh Fitzgerald).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024660.php
we let anyone in here
havent we let terrorists stay here in the past
its disgusting. and disgusting to read so many people agreeing.
We hear a lot about “the free movement of Labour” in relation to the ‘benefits’ of our EU membership.
Isn’t it time we heard something about “the free movement of ideas”?
So where is the Tory input on this debate? So far all we’ve seen is a disgraceful stony silence. If Conservatives won’t stand up for something as fundamentally important as freedom of speech what frigging use are they going to be if they form the next government?
MWL: Rubbish. The BBC forgot to point out that all of the violence and verses in the film are the work of Muslims. There are no ranting BNP types calling for the death of Muslims (which WOULD have broken the law)
So the next time a bunch of bushy bearded ****wits turn up in Trafalgar square shouting Jihad, behead those that insult Islam you will pay like you did on 7/7 etc and I use that film to point out that Islam is a vile violent religion, I’m the one preaching hate?
Is that what you are saying?
weirdvis:
So where is the Tory input on this debate?
===
Exactly. I must confess – I have always voted Tory because I used to believe in their ideas of free capitalism.
No more. I live in a constituency that has a massive Tory majority and so will return a Tory MP but I will be voting for one of the smaller parties. My mind on which one will depend upon who stands within the constituency.
Not that I will probably support their view. It is simply a protest at the degredation of our Parliament, the degredation of our public servants and the degredation of the whole country.
Nothing will change unless the political establishment as a whole is given a bloody nose.
ngg:
back when the left was not in power their free cpeech was vital, now ummm its not so important is it???
ngg | 13.02.09 – 10:00 am
The left used to be anti the establishment, but now that they ARE the establishment, they do not seem so keen to question the authorities any more.
The police are an interesting case, as they are still being ‘moved over’ and at present we are at the middle point where you can observe equilibrium.
I don’t think the BBC Have Your Say page has been doing quite so well though :
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6046&edition=1&ttl=20090213112642
At present there are something like 2300 comments still in moderation out of a total of 3000 or so, and I doubt that the ones left hanging toe the BBC party line.
Which is, if you read the HYS question, that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees free speech but excludes that great Gramsciian weasel concept – “hate speech.” You are invited to suggest where to draw that difficult line between free speech and hate speech.
But Article 19 makes no mention of “hate speech” at all – how could it, the declaration have been in existence decades before the lefties invented the concept of hate speech.
Hate speech – now a mainstream progressive concept – is simply a rewarmed “no platform for fascists” – the SWP war cry from the seventies.
Economically the lefties may have been drifting right over the last thirty years. But on questions of liberty they have gone authoritarian at a terrifying pace.
Geert Wilders has another policy – nothing at all to do with Muslims – that’s bound to get up the BBC’s nose:
Limiting public television to a single channel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders
David Vance: I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace
Although I usually post against the muslim extremists under this name, I am aware that there are many moderate muslims in the UK also. The trouble is they have to keep silent as they fear the others, and we do not know what percentage they are out of the total.
Unfortunately the moderates are not as numerous IMO due to the successful effects of sending young muslim children for brainwashing in mosques most evenings after school (sometimes 3 hours per night). I have seen pleasant children whose families have lived in England here for 3 generations change and become totally loyal to foreign countries, which they idolise. The irony is that some of these children are in families where there is no father present, and if they went back to these foreign places to which they are so loyal, their mothers who look after them would be treated like dirt and receive no help from the state.
There are muslims who are moderate and who despise the extremists in the countries they fled from, such as Iran. Some of them would like G Wilders to come over as it might bring a halt to the advance of extremism which is what they fled from.
Are they also ‘bigots’ like Wilder keeps being called? I would like to ask Portillo, who used that word last night against Wilders.
So, the moderate muslims who want the film shown are ‘bigots’. I would like to see people like Portillo to come straight out and say it to the moderate muslims: you are bigots because to don’t want to turn Britain into an extremist Islamic state.
In my opinion, every MP or broadcaster or QT panelist who opposes the showing of the film is in fact supporting the cause of Islamification of Britain by extremists.
I cannot believe that they can watch the film and think, ‘These Mullahs seem to be fairly reasonable people, I think I will go on air using my friend the BBC now and call anyone who objects to what these mullahs are saying a bigot’.
Do they watch the crazy mullahs and think ‘Hmmmm, we could do with a bit more of that in Britain right now…’
weirdvis:
So where is the Tory input on this debate? So far all we’ve seen is a disgraceful stony silence.
weirdvis | 13.02.09 – 10:49 am |
They were represented by Justine Greening on QT last night – what a disgrace
Michael Portillo, and others who call Wilders a bigot – whose side would you take?
Side one
The moderate muslims and 95% of the rest of Britain
The lower ranks of the police force
Side two
The extemist muslims who want an extreme muslim state in Britain.
Lord Ahmed
Lord Ahmeds little private army
The BBC
The Labour Party
half of the Conservative Party
Some of the higher ranks of the police force
To defend the indefensible is sometimes hard even for the bbc, hence the debate on free speech on last night’s Newsnight appeared neutral. Although, this didn’t stop the Quilliam guy to point out, rather glibly, that he was the only muslim there! Does he mean that islam can only be debated by muslims, even when that faith’s freedom means subjugation of others? Anyway, I rated last night’s programme 5 out of 10 • not more than that mainly because of the inept Kirsty Wark, her style and her mediocre grasp of the subject in hand.
She leaves me gasping with frustration every time I see her; she never asks the right questions and always interrupts the speakers when they are just about to say something interesting. In this, she is in good company with the shrill from the Today programme • one Sarah Montague • who is also mediocrity encapsulate and interjects at the wrong moment.
However, back on this Fitna issue: Why doesn’t anyone shout at the bbc (or the media in general) when they take Greert’s name in the same breath they mention Yusuf Qaradawi’s? One of them has openly talked about killing Jews, Christians and homosexuals, has condoned stoning, wife beatings and many other vile things, and the other person is Geert.
In a clip on Newsnight, the Labour Peer, Lord Ahmed (oh how I hate to say that!), said that he could equally say many hateful things about other religions. To this I would say two things: 1) that you probably do anyway during your reading of the quaran and 2) can you make a film like Geert’s where terrorists are shown going through their Jihad, but replace those terrorists with Christians, Jews or Hindus, juxtaposed with the verses from their holy scriptures? Or indeed find Bishops or sadhus spewing the vile that the imams are shown spouting in this film?
Anyway, this board is not dedicated to Geert’s defence, so I will leave it at that.
Newsnight sucks! Emily Maitlis gives me a krick in the neck every time I watch her, Gavin needs to eat more and Jeremy, well he needs to be put out to pastures new. One ray of solace in the sea of mediocrity – Martha Kearney, when she’s on I just roll up and fantasise of some really bad things! My doctor says I’m not right in the head!
weirdvis:
So where is the Tory input on this debate?
Try this:
“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban.”
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2009/02/tories-choose-s.html?cid=148336553#comment-148336553
Or this from Damian Thompson in the Telegraph:
Do Cameron’s Tories secretly admire Islam?
“If you regard the spread of Islamic ghettos as one of the greatest social threats facing modern Britain (and modern Muslims), then there’s so little to choose between the two main parties that I can’t see a case for voting Tory. Conservative political correctness is normally more funny than alarming, especially when practised by deeply snobbish Old Etonians. But when it extends to taking advice from Muslim radicals about the correct posture to take towards the “religion of peace”, then it is positively dangerous.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2008/12/27/do_camerons_tories_secretly_admire_islam?com_num=20&com_pg=2
Shouting fire in a theatre:
Or indeed find Bishops or sadhus spewing the vile that the imams are shown spouting in this film
Gary O | 13.02.09 – 12:37 pm |
Not only that, but just look at the reaction of the crowds when the speeches are made. Can you imagine Jews or Christians punching fists in the air and demanding war?
Hey, the “film” has all the artistic merit and persuasive power of a primary school project. The individual has the sparkling charisma and statesmanlike aura of an off form Dirk Kuyt.
And in banning the dude Ms Smith has made him a Nelson Mandela for middle England (and middle World). Good work Jacqui
‘National Review’:
“Preserving ‘Harmony’ for Islamic Radicals
Geert Wilders is barred from entering the United Kingdom.”
By Andrew C. McCarthy
[Extract]:
“It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster.
“If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVhODU5MDQ2OTg5OGNmOWJkNjk3MTRlYTg4MGJjZjM
We know the BBC’s political position on Islam, which is imposed on BBC licencepayers daily:
‘Telegraph’
“BBC boss says Islam should be treated more sensitively than Christianity” (2008)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3198804/BBC-boss-says-Islam-should-be-treated-more-sensitively-than-Christianity.html
Balen update via Normblog
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/
ukipwebmaster 13.02.09 – 12:47 pm
good film link re Wilders in the news
Yes and the Government never tried to stop Gerry Adams from being an MP did they?
I see camp Nicki Campbell is off to Sandhurst to report on the army on Monday.
Apart from the fact he’ll enjoy being surrounded by hunky young men anyone want to bet what the main topic that Campbell will bring up?
How about Paki, racist, Moozlums?
Muslim Wars | 13.02.09 – 12:20 pm
David Vance: I can’t see many grounds for the oft heard claims that that the majority of Muslims are moderate, and that Islam is the religion of peace
Dear Muslim Wars,
Although I did feel a bit off colour this morning, it wasn’t because I had suddenly turned into David Vance. Please don’t blame him for my sins.
But the quote you use should not have been detached from the qualifier that preceded it – “In the light of the loudly proclaimed assurance by Lord Ahmed that every single word of the Koran has equal importance and is of vital significance, etc…” I hope you can see my point.
Sue,
Nor would I want you blamed for my many sins!
Excellent blog and just to let you know how much I appreciate your contributions here!
Okay, Sue, point taken, and here is another point, about every part of the Koran being so vitally important:
The book is believed to have some kind of power that by merely saying the words (in Arabic) makes one closer to Allah.
The practical effects of this are as follows:
1) Muslim children spending 10-20 hours per week in the mosque in Britain after school and at weekends, chanting it. They learn a page at a time and recite it, then go on to the next page. This is not so difficult for children who speak Arabic, but for Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc, it can be quite an ordeal, as they do not understand a word of it.
I asked one clever child who had read it three times in this manner, to name one incident in the life of the prohet. He could not.
2) There is a MASSIVE industry in teaching the Koran in Britain – remember 99.99% of muslim children are paying for these lessons in mosques.
kersal flyer:
weirdvis:
So where is the Tory input on this debate?
Try this:
“We have consistently called on the Government to tackle extremists. If Geert Wilders has expressed views that represent a threat to public security, then we support the ban.”
http://conservativehome.blogs.co…mment- 148336553
I saw what was posted on ConservativeHome this morning and I wasn’t impressed either. This is worse than Miliband denouncing the film and then admitting he had no idea what he was denouncing.
Maybe, instead of taking Jacquboot Smith’s word for it, the Tories should see (or admit they have already seen) and honestly evaluate “Fitna” for themselves. And then maybe we wouldn’t get such a weasely and spineless response from the idiots who think they are fit to govern us when Labour finally gets the big heave-ho.
Opposition a la Dave is just a bloody joke.
Gary O | 13.02.09 – 12:37 pm
she never asks the right questions and always interrupts the speakers when they are just about to say something interesting.
Agreed. She gets involved in the debate as if she is one of the guests, and not the host. She lacks the ability to distance herself from the debate and allow it to flow while still retaining control. And she seems to be unaware of the audience, who are trying to grasp the point that is being made by someone when she interrupts him. I also have difficulty with her accent and presentation. Sometimes I don’t understand what she says.
But the only bias I saw from her on this particular show was bias in favour of allowing Wilders into Britain. So if we are going to condemn the BBC for its bias we should be prepared to condemn it when it shows bias that agrees with our own views.
It was unprofessional of Wark to dive into the debate in defence of Wilders. That ain’t her role.
Here’s Pats take on the situation before GW arrived in the UK , cant wait for his next vid.
http://www.patcondell.net/
newsnight was an eye opener. vaz must have said go there and debate him more than 5 times.
I would love to know if Vaz has duel nationality, thereby giving him a quick get out of Britain when some of the Crap he has stirred (and created) starts coming to the surface.
From the HYS on Wilders:
Added: Friday, 13 February, 2009, 13:40 GMT 13:40 UK
Well, since I’ve already had 2 of my comments on this thread rejected, I guess I’ll have to be careful about what I say about freedom of speech.
But broadly, I think it’s a good thing.
[DisgustedOfMitcham2], London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 3 people
I like that one. We need more humour in this world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2009/02/israels_election_did_anyone_wi.html#comments
BBC moderators are being their usual stingy selves, posting a comment or three here and there while the “Moderation queue” builds up into the thousands.
At least people are free to send in comments that will just back up in the queue and never see the light of day.
Here are links to BBC’s coverage of yesterday’s events:
Geert detailed at Heathrow:
Interviewed by Kirsty Wark on Newsnight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hm5dt/b00hm5dk/Newsnight_12_02_2009/
Susan Franklin | 13.02.09 – 10:01 am |
but did not not mention (and neither did any of the guests) the real threat, not from Wilders, but from Ahmed within the UK.
Yes, that’s really the key point, isn’t it? What I don’t like is how this has been removed entirely from the public debate about free speech. Everybody likes to say that there should be freedom of speech unless it incites violence. But nobody on the BBC is willing to ask, “violence from whom?”
If Wilders’ film really does lead to violence, and it turns out that the violence comes from Muslims, is Milliband somehow, in a twisted way, correct? That’s the debate the BBC needs to be having on this.
This is the text of the speech that Wilders was due to deliver to the House of Lords yesterday:
http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org/2009/02/the-house-of-lords-speech-what-wilders%E2%80%99-would-have-said-if-the-uk-allowed-free-speech/
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned • all throughout the 1930’s • for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.
…………
read it all!
can’t seem to find a link to the Wilders have your say debate on the have your say page
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/default.stm
It doesn’t seem to be in the archive either…
anton 4:46 pm
Yes, and Geert Wilders concludes his banned speech with a reference to a BBC of yesteryear:
‘Jihadwatch’-
{Concluding extract of Wilders’ banned speech}:
“We have to defend freedom of speech.
“For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
“What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
“The choice is ours.
“Ladies and gentlemen,
“We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
“Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
“Thank you very much.
Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands”
David Vance,
I`m afraid I cant agree with your number 4.
Many if not most muslims around the world just want to be peaceful. I have an inkling the proprtion is lower in Britain, but I still think the majority are for peace, respect of OUR culture and tolerance.
Two Muslimss I saw on TV yesterday (probably the same two as yours ) said free speach was sacrosant abd Geert Wilders should have been allowed in. One said debate is better than censorship.
The trouble is, the BBC and Government ignores them as it ignores the rest of us, and only listens to the Armed Lord.
They are as disenfranchised as us .
Ju | 13.02.09 – 4:49 pm
Accessing your link, this is the first time I’ve seen an ongoing debate taken off the main page. Probably members of the Religion of Peace are on shift now at the BBC website.
I gave the wrong link at 4:31 pm, but this one should work:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6046&edition=2&ttl=20090213161712
‘Telegraph’:
‘Geert Wilders to sue Jacquii Smith..’
Extract]:
“The legal action would have the backing of the Dutch Government, in a move which could aggravate the diplomatic row over the ban between London and Amsterdam.
“Mr Wilders said he was looking to take legal action against the Home Secretary for ‘blatant discrimination’ in the High Court or International Court in the Hague.
“The Dutch Politician and film maker was sent back to Holland on Thursday night after trying to enter Britain to show his anti Muslim film Fitna in the House of Lords.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4612257/Geert-Wilders-to-sue-Jacqui-Smith-over-decision-to-deport-controversial-film-maker.html
anton
Thank you for posting the link to the speech that Wilders wished to make.
It is disgraceful that he was barred from the UK. More than disgraceful – it is dangerous to our freedoms, because it creates a precedent.
I think it would be useful if a further invitation was issued to Wilders. For a date several weeks ahed – which would perhaps allow someone to challenge the Home Secretary’s decisions in the courts.
A certiorari writ would allow the Home Sec’s spineless decision to be reviewed and challenged. Time was, this was the sort of action the McWhirter brothers who founded the Guinness Book of Records would have mounted.
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
George R
I was writing my comment while you were posting yours.
It is ESSENTIAL for the Home Sec to be legally challenged.
Just seen there is a link to the freedom of speech debate on HYS on the “UK version” of the BBC website. You can switch to “International” and back to “UK” on the left sidebar:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
Labour Government`s Chamberlain Moment
“By banning Wilders from England, the Labour government has sent a clear message that Islam cannot be criticized. But by stifling free speech, the cornerstone of freedom and democracy, in this manner and appeasing a thuggish minority, it has set itself up for far worse consequences. But hopefully by then, the British people will have decided to take action themselves, reverse this trend towards humiliation and disaster, and re-establish the great legacy of their ancestors.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F4BF2126-0D78-48E0-B463-5F7D645E19B6
.
Original Robin | 13.02.09 – 5:05 pm |
Many if not most muslims around the world just want to be peaceful. I have an inkling the proprtion is lower in Britain, but I still think the majority are for peace, respect of OUR culture and tolerance.
We will never know how many want peace, because the muslim community exerts ruthless and total control over its members, starting from an early age.
I know a 10 year old muslim boy who mentioned casually that his father had a glass of wine occassionally. This information got passed around his friends and when he turned up at school, the first thing another boy said in a loud condeming voice was “YOUR DAD DRINKS ALCOHOL!”
The accused boy was terrified in case the information reached the mosque and got his parents into trouble. He told his father off and extorted a promise from his father never to do it again. If this is how they have trained the 10 year olds to control anyone straying from the line, imagine how fearful the adults are.
During the 10-20 hours per week in the mosque, the children also aquire a strong hatred of pigs, and a fear of eating non-halal meat or pork.
If you have a 10 year old white child, try asking a muslim 10 year old to join your family on a social occasion. You will find out that they are not allowed to mix socially with non-muslims.
The muslims are the clear winners in any claim to be the most intolerent group, ever.
We hear a lot about the speck of BNP intolerence, meanwhile the log of muslim intolerance is ignored.