Dutch MP refused entry to Britain

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK.

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.

But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.

He told the BBC it was a "very sad day" for UK democracy.

The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK.

'Free speech'

Mr Wilders' film Fitna caused outrage across the Muslim world when it was posted on the internet last year.

After being questioned at Heathrow, the MP said he had been to the House of Lords two weeks ago and there had been "no problem".

He added: "I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London."

Mr Wilders added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back."

He said the government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown was the "biggest coward in Europe".

Mr Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "fully supports the decision" taken by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Mr Wilders was invited to the House of Lords for a screening of Fitna by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson.

The peer said it was a "matter of free speech", telling the BBC: "We are going to show it anyway because we think MPs and peers should see this film."

'No purpose'

He added: "The film isn't offensive unless you are a violent Islamist. Most of my Muslim friends think it's a very good film."

Fitna's opening scenes show a copy of the Koran followed by footage of the 9/11 attacks in the US and the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005.

The Lords screening went ahead as planned, despite Mr Wilder's non-attendance.

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said about 30 people had been at the screening and had given a round of applause, while calling for a debate on the issues raised.

The Dutch prime minister has said the film serves "no purpose other than to offend".

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC's Hardtalk: "The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do."

He added that the film contained "extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country".

Mr Miliband also said: "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

Cabinet Office minister Liam Byrne said, on BBC One's Question Time: "This guy wasn't coming here to exercise his right of free speech. This guy was trying to come here in order to sow division between us in this country.

"Everything I've heard about this guy tells me he's a bigot and the right place for him is to stay at home."

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.

'No respect'

"The government opposes extremism in all forms," it said in a statement, adding that it had tightened up rules on excluding those engaging in "unacceptable behaviour" in October.

The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views.

Earlier this year, a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to put the MP on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination by making anti-Islamic statements.

Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who expressed his concerns to the parliamentary authorities about Mr Wilders' visit, told the BBC: "This man doesn't have any respect for law. He's doing this for publicity and he's seeking that and getting that."

He added: "If this man was allowed into this country it would certainly cause problems within communities around Britain."

The Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Wilders was "an open and relentless preacher of hate".

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it.

"But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7885918.stm

An unfortunate decision by the British government. If you dislike him them let him in and then mock him. You don't ban him from entering because of his views, that sets a dangerous precedent.

Geert Wilders may be obnoxious, but he was elected; Lord Ahmed was not
Posted By: Daniel Hannan at Feb 13, 2009 at 17:37:48 [General]

Lord Ahmed, the Labour peer who had demanded that Geert Wilders be denied entry into the UK, writes an apologia in The Guardian that wavers between self-justification and self-satisfaction.

I hadn't planned to return to this story. Regular readers will know that this blog broke the news of Wilders' ban in the UK on Tuesday, a full 24 hours before it was picked up by other electronic media, and 48 hours before it started appearing in the dead tree press. There is something slightly surreal about wading your way through ponderous arguments in Friday's papers when pretty well everything had been said on the blogs by Wednesday afternoon.

But I am driven to remark on Lord Ahmed's fatuous essay for three reasons:

1. He repeats the claim that Wilders is guilty of incitement. He isn't. Being obnoxious is not a criminal offence. To find someone guilty of incitement, you need to show that they, you know, incited someone. Some of the preachers that Wilders excoriates are guilty of incitement in this sense, but this never seems to impede their entry and re-entry into the UK.

2. Lord Ahmed writes: "The Quilliam Foundation says it disagrees with the ban, but it doesn't represent the masses and it doesn't have the support of the majority of the Muslim community. I represent views that I believe are in the best interests of our country." Oh yeah? Who says? Who elected you to Parliament? My own Muslim constituents often complain of the way any Leftie agitator with a Muslim name can set himself up as a "Muslim leader" and be taken at his word by the newspapers. By claiming that Wilders's presence in the UK would lead to violence, Lord Ahmed is surely insulting his co-religionists, casting them in the role of bellicose extremists.

3. Unlike Lord Ahmed, Geert Wilders is elected. He may be a bit of an arse, but he has a mandate. Lord Ahmed should ponder this before presuming to be the sole interpreter of public opinion.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/Daniel...noxious_but_he_was_elected_lord_ahmed_was_not
 
I've seen that movie and don't find it offensive in any way... I don't know if you have followed the Wilders debate last year... but there were several extremist leaders that ordered "true" moslems to kill that Dutch guy. He can not sleep in the same location in 2 consecutive nights... he has a own secret service like bodyguard group. Just because he made a movie some extremists find insulting like these Danish caricatures 2 years ago...

Search for the movie in the internet.. watch it... decide for yourself that this debate is a complete joke!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410
 
Last edited:
I must admit I know very little about this guy but from what I have heard his views seem quite extreme.

Having said that, excluding him seems stupid for 2 reasons - 1) It just gave his cause huge publicity and 2) He is not really a danger to the uk, he might have racist views but he isn't likely to kill any muslims while in this country. This law should be kept for what it was designed for - excluding real dangerous criminals like Snoop Dogg - just a few seconds of his "music" can cause permanent scarring!
 
This and the whole holocaust denial thing being against the law are so ridiculous.

But I get the feeling the UK did it just to placate the radical muslims in the UK. I believe last week or so there was a report (?) in the U.S. about how muslims from the U.K could potentially launch terrorist attacks in the U.S. There are a lot of extremists there plus the whole British citizen/visa thing....basically it's a recipe for disaster.
 
How is somebody who is telling the world about people guilty of incitement, therefore himself guilty of incitement. That is ridiculous. Apparently he is facing a prison sentence in the Netherlands also...
 
But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.

[...]

The Dutch ambassador was also at Heathrow to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK.

Dutch government: "We don't want him, you take him!" :p
 
Whenever someone says something controversial or provocative about Islam and that it was a religion that currently represents some very real dangers for the civilized world, they are proven absolutely right by every single threat which is made afterwards by islamic fundamentals...

The goal is clear: Create fear, so nobody dares to say something negative about Islam anymore. It started with Salman Rushdie.

The sad thing is, that governments like the British one don't seem to have the guts to defend the freedom of speech against all assaults on it and rather violate EU law and some of the very basic principles of the free world instead.

But you won't win over religious extremists with overacted tolerance and preemptive self-censorship, because they interpret it as a weakness of our society. Besides, it isn't tolerance at all, but just cowardice.

Everyone who wants to disagree must answer the question, whether he believes the same thing would have happened, if Wilders made a provocative movie about Opus Dei or other extremist groups within the Catholic church as an example for the flaws of christianity?
And before someone answers: "Wait a minute, Christians do not threaten to kill people who mock their belief", take a closer look at the religious fundamentalists in the USA. In my opinion they are just one step away from becoming dangerous extremists.

After all, we all know that there have been stones thrown at people in certain Southern areas of the USA for much smaller offenses ;)
 
Last edited:
Nothing would have happened. The pope would put on his angry look... thats it. No embassies would have burned etc...

@alihaig:

Why don't you watch the movie i've posted ;) That should clear it up.
 
The goal is clear: Create fear, so nobody dares to say something negative about Islam anymore. It started with Salman Rushdie.

20th Anniversary of the burning of the Satanic Verses last week as well.

Which just goes to show that in the end, the extremists won.
 
The only way to combat the misinformation that people like Wilders (or the BNP) spew is to use open debate and facts, which is why I think the decision was the wrong one.

It gives him undue publicity and gets many more people seeing the film than would have originally.
 
Well, off course not letting him in was the wrong thing to do. It shows that the uk gouverment rather pleases a certain group, than support true freedom of speech.

However, that man just rambles on about islam this and islam that without saying anything constructive. It's clear there are problems, but emphasizing that doesn't help them get solved. Still, they really insulted the Dutch government by banning him.

ps.
It's highly unlikely that he will ever be prosecuted here in the Netherlands. They might do an investigation but he will never ever have to do hard time.
 
Last edited:
While I principally oppose Wilders political agenda, I too think that this is the wrong way of dealing with things. I think it even helps him playing the victim card (that nationalists so love to play).
wildcat said:
This and the whole holocaust denial thing being against the law are so ridiculous.[...]
The more often I hear and read this argumentation or opinion, I get the feeling that it must be hard to understand why most european courtries won?t just let these lies exist under the concept of free speech. I guess it?s a bit of a question of "has your country be turned to ash by the nazis and did millions of your People get killed by them" ... we are not ready to look or hear away when our parents grew up without their parents and the Scars of this war are still visible in our towns. It?s like someone shitting on your grandparents graves ... and maybe that?s an image that let?s you understand why we just won?t take stuff like that.
 
The only way to combat the misinformation that people like Wilders (or the BNP) spew is to use open debate and facts, which is why I think the decision was the wrong one.

It gives him undue publicity and gets many more people seeing the film than would have originally.

I don't see any misinformation there... It are just unpleasant facts. Okey, he only shows the bad aspects and non of the good ones but it's just facts that can not be made untrue...

There is a cartain danger and it won't get any better sweeping every criticism under the carpet...
 
I don't agree with Wilders' view of the Islam (I know some muslims personally and non of them is a crazy fanatic or murderer), but one has to say that the way his "movie" is made, is in fact not much different from what Michael Moore does in his films - only from a rightwing point of view, instead of leftwing.

Both don't lie and show facts that are actually true but both also do not show the whole truth or a balanced view -- just the part that fits into their intended message.

In both cases it's your own fault, if you fall for it...

However, the topic has to be openly discussed. Trying to ban people like Wilders, only plays into the hands of the extremists, who conveniently get away without having to be seriously confronted with or questioned about their crude behavior. An open discussion about the up- and downsides of Islam will never happen in such an atmosphere. Wilders' film is a provocation for sure but many healthy discussions arose from provocations like this.
 
Last edited:
the whole holocaust denial thing being against the law are so ridiculous.

No. No no no no no.

To deny the holocaust happened is to try and pretend it didn't exist. And if it doesn't exist the likelihood of it happening again increases.

So many of todays media, politicians, commentators, journalists bend truths, lie by omission and refuse to answer questions. It is accepted that it happens.

But when that acceptance is extended to cold, hard, facts, when people are allowed to say that 6 million people didn't die in camps and to do so freely and without question, then we have not learned the lesson of history.

To put it another way - people watched JFK die in 1963, yet the conspiracy theories remain. People watched the Moon landings, yet conspiracy theories remain.

But what if they extended that to the World Trade Centre attacks never happened? 60 years from now and a movement is growing that claims 9/11 never happened and was faked to start a war. It sounds crazy now, because we saw it and the evidence exists. But the evidence at Auschwitz and Belsen exists and more and more of these f**kers turn up to deny it.

That is why we need a law against it - to make people remember and stops others trying to make us forget.
 
Last edited:
I don't see any misinformation there...[...]
I see a lot of information pushed into the wrong context there, wich is basically 'misinformation'. While even as an athesist myself (and hence I usally don?t "defend" faiths but want them gone alltogether) it?s easy to see what kind of unobjective propaganda-film this is that only plays on peoples fear and ignorance.
 
"But he has greasy blonde hair."
"Okay then tell him to get stuffed."

Haven't followed this but from the news interviews I've seen he thinks we're making a mistake by not having him here. :rofl:
 
I usally don?t "defend" faiths but want them gone alltogether

I wouldn't say faith is the source of all evil -- but religions surely are a major one, especially those which claim for themselves to be the only ones being right!

Let's not forget that Christianity once was much more barbaric, than Islam will probably ever be. But we Christians have overcome that (for the most part at least) and now the Islamic world has to go through the same process.

People should have faith in something, otherwise we lose our ideals and moral standards, but organized beliefs, a.k.a. religions, really have to be completely separated from real world issues and stay within their churches, synagogues, temples and mosques.

Haven't followed this but from the news interviews I've seen he thinks we're making a mistake by not having him here. :rofl:

It's not just a mistake, it might be an illegal action. He hasn't been sentenced for anything yet and therefore he is still allowed to travel freely within the EU. I wouldn't be surprised if he files charges against the denial of free travel, which would result in even more publicity and could become very embarrassing for the British government.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with Wilders' view of the Islam (I know some muslims personally and non of them is a crazy fanatic or murderer), but one has to say that the way his "movie" is made, is in fact not much different from what Michael Moore does in his films - only from a rightwing point of view, instead of leftwing.

Well said. And everybody knows how much Europeans love Michael Moore.
 
I had the most excellent experience of seeing Michael Moore demolish a room full of smug left wingers. The sound of 2,000 nervous bums shifting on seats was something I'm not going to forget.
 
Top