Wilders Denied Entry Into UK Despite Being Invited By Parliament

ChocolateSauce

More on Wilders...and mods, don't worry, this isn't another freedom of speech thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7882953.stm

I've little to say, except that they are wrong to do this. They claim his presence will cause problems. "Lord Ahmed, who said other Muslim peers shared his concerns, stressed that Mr Wilders' views would certainly present a threat to public order."

So let me get this straight...they fear that Muslims are going to start rioting and commit violent acts, and so they penalise a man who only wants to talk about his opinions?

Right. Lovely state society's in these days.

Nodin

Theres a number of muslim speakers that have been barred, theres a few holocaust deniers that have been kept out. Farrakhan was also refused entry at one stage. They only wanted to talk about their opinions too.

Fratton Fred

add the odd american rapper to that list as well.

Nodin

True. Snoop Dog was kept out, and he just wanted to sing a few songs. All in all, the Haircut from Holland has SFA to complain about.

irish_bob

Nodin wrote: »

True. Snoop Dog was kept out, and he just wanted to sing a few songs. All in all, the Haircut from Holland has SFA to complain about.

snoop dogg commited a crime at heathrow airport the last time he was in the uk , its nothing to do with what comes out of his mouth


ps , i like snoop

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I've little to say, except that they are wrong to do this.

Pretty hypocritical alright and it paints Wilders as something of a martyr and generates publicity for him, which is the last thing they want. On a side note, he is one scary looking MoFo.

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a number of muslim speakers that have been barred, theres a few holocaust deniers that have been kept out. Farrakhan was also refused entry at one stage. They only wanted to talk about their opinions too.

Well, further disgrace on the UK in that case. I'm more sceptical about the rappers. They're probably not allowed in because they have records, and not the kind they sell.

On a side note, he is one scary looking MoFo.

Haha, yeah, with his peroxide blonde hair and beady little eyes....

FTA69

Buju Banton and Sizzla (reggae artists) were also excluded because of the homophobia in their lyrics.

Nodin

.....and overall you can bet their videos were better than the Hairdos.

ChocolateSauce

WARNING, LINK LEADS TO FITNA, A VIDEO THAT MAY BE CONSTRUED AS OFFENSIVE TO PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY MUSLIMS!

Denied entry abroad, prosecuted at home, all because of this badly presented movie which is largely based on the display of verses from the Koran:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3369102968312745410&hl=en

Nodin

They had two of his cronies on Sky last night. Some American "OMG TehMuzlims!!!" type and another eejit giving a press conference. Seeing the likes of them get airtime is probably the best argument for letting the prat in.

SeanW

I've seen Fitna and I don't understand how it could possibly qualify as Hate Speech - that is, if hate speech is even a reason to gag someone, as someone who is hateful is usually rather transparent about that and most people can recognise, and thusly avoid hateful sentiment.

All that Fitna does is reveal to some of us who didn't already know, the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is ... unless of course you do not consider "Freedom go to HELL" "Death to Salman Rushdie" "Houses and young men must be sacrificed" "Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed" or 3 year old girls who at that age have learned that "I hate the the Jews because they are apes and pigs" to be hate speech.

In 1859, John Stewart Mill wrote that: "Silencing an opinion is not merely a private injury, but an evil done to the human race, in the present and in the future, to dissenters and to believers alike. If the opinion is right, we lose the opportunity of exchanging error for truth, and if wrong, we lose the opportunity of its full understanding which can only be produced by its contrast with error; otherwise whatever views we hold will be held as dead dogma, not living truth."

If Geert Wilders is nothing more than a hatemonger, and the particulars of his film is easily dismissable by the facts, why is this not the preferred course, over prosecutions, barring orders and threats of violence? Could it be that his arguments are not so easily refuted by fact and so it becomes necessary to oppose him by force, which Lord Ahmed is accused of having done, by threatening to bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to block Mr Wilders from entering Westminster, among other things, and why does Labour seem to love Islamist intimidation so much?

He said it is wrong to believe that religious belief is dying out, and credited Britain's growing Muslim population with raising the public profile of all faiths because secular commentators are afraid to criticise them.

Hmm ...

asdasd

the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is

Come now. That is Hate Speech and Thought Crime in itself. Was all the teaching at the re-education camp in vain?

Surely you know that

a) If the Pope criticises homosexuality it is a hate crime.
b) It's ok for Islam to do it because Islam is oppressed. Therefore Islam cannot involve itself in hate criminality, only the dominent bourgeois white oppressive culture.

Remember!!

Also

a) European borders should be open to all workers even if they are undercutting wages of the working class. The working classes are agents of white bourgeois oppression when they oppose this. All opposition to open borders is fascism. Remember ths holocaust?
b) European borders should be closed to European parliament members from other member States if we oppose their views.
c) Any muslim can come in regardless of his, or her, views. And from anywhere. Not just Europe. Opposition to this is fascist.

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

All that Fitna does is reveal to some of us who didn't already know, the hatefulness of radical Islamism, which is where the REAL Hate Speech is ... unless of course you do not consider "Freedom go to HELL" "Death to Salman Rushdie" "Houses and young men must be sacrificed" "Allah is happy when non-Muslims get killed" or 3 year old girls who at that age have learned that "I hate the the Jews because they are apes and pigs" to be hate speech.

Having watched it I'd disagree. It doesn't limit itself to revealing the hatefullness of radial Islamism, it quotes barbaric sounding verses from the Qu'ran and then casts them beside images of radical Islamism as if one causes another. The thing is, if you wanted to you could drag up equally violent quotations from the Bible yet we don't have massive radical Christian terrorism these days.

His argument is a fallacy, he casts the two side by side without showing cause and effect. Violent proclamations in a religious text does not automatically beget terrorism and radical behaviour as his film suggests. I can see why it would deeply offend Muslims in general.


That said, while his film is offensive, I don't see what barring him from the UK achieves other than raising his profile and getting more people to watch it which is probably exactly what he wants.

SeanW

The thing is, if you wanted to you could drag up equally violent quotations from the Bible yet we don't have massive radical Christian terrorism these days.

Actually, you will find Christianity to be nearly as much of a threat to liberal values and civil progress as Islam - after all they have a hateful view of homosexuals, practiced slavery up until the 1850s in the American South, rail against contraception in AIDS ravaged Africa, hell, both divorce AND homosexuality were illegal in Ireland until the mid 90s while priests diddling boys, de-facto, was not.
(You can probably imagine I don't think much of religion).

His argument is a fallacy, he casts the two side by side without showing cause and effect. Violent proclamations in a religious text does not automatically beget terrorism and radical behaviour as his film suggests. I can see why it would deeply offend Muslims in general.

Fair enough. I will concede that I do not share all of Mr. Wilders views, in particular that the Koran should be banned - I don't believe in banning anything even if it is hateful, because that's a very slippery slope. That includes the Bible, Mein Kampf (of which I have read parts of both). So I'm not a huge Wilders fan in that respect.

What makes Fitna so important in my view is the detailing it does of Islamist sentiment towards freedom, democracy and civilised values. It is this right to question an evil - even if its scale is questionable - that I think must be protected and enshrined at all costs. Otherwise we risk creating dark corners where such ills can grow, like what we're seeing in some European countries and Canada.

Run_to_da_hills

This was discussed on a similar thread in AH,

According to the Telegraph on this story Britains right to free speech is deminishing rapidly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

Actually, you will find Christianity to be nearly as much of a threat to liberal values and civil progress as Islam - after all they have a hateful view of homosexuals, practiced slavery up until the 1850s in the American South, rail against contraception in AIDS ravaged Africa, hell, both divorce AND homosexuality were illegal in Ireland until the mid 90s while priests diddling boys, de-facto, was not.
(You can probably imagine I don't think much of religion).

Yup, like I said not much radical terrorism. I never said Christianity wasn't a thread to liberal values.

SeanW wrote: »

What makes Fitna so important in my view is the detailing it does of Islamist sentiment towards freedom, democracy and civilised values. It is this right to question an evil - even if its scale is questionable - that I think must be protected and enshrined at all costs. Otherwise we risk creating dark corners where such ills can grow, like what we're seeing in some European countries and Canada.

See the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

SeanW

nesf wrote: »

See the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I think the point is you're giving Wilders far too much credit. You're taking what is clearly a trashy piece of Islamophobia and turning it into some sort of deep, meaningful proclamation against oppressors of freedom.

Personally, I find it difficult to take Wilders seriously; he cries foul when he is "gagged", but at the same time he's trying to have a book banned. Go figure.

Mena

nesf wrote: »

Seee the thing is, does it? Or does it detail a straw man of these sentiments?

I'd have to agree here, based entirely on personal experience. While there can be no excuse for the actions of fundamentalist Islamists, they certainly do not, in my view, represent the majority out there. I've spent much of the past five years in the Middle East and would be hard pressed to find a nicer, more gently and kind people on this planet, even if they still believe in archaic stories.

Nodin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

This was discussed on a similar thread in AH,

According to the Telegraph on this story Britains right to free speech is deminishing rapidly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

So when that Imam was kept out a while back, you reckon they took the same line?

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

He presents Islam in general and specifically certain pages of their holy book as the cause of this extremism. This is in my opinion a straw man and misses or deliberately misconstrues the true causal factors underlying extremism in the Middle East. I don't see it as a criticism of threats against freedom, liberty or whatever. It's a poor smear piece that misses the point.

ChocolateSauce

nesf wrote: »

it quotes barbaric sounding verses from the Qu'ran and then casts them beside images of radical Islamism as if one causes another.

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran? Can you imagine the difference we'd see if there were verses like "Convert all ye can, but do not do violence unto the unbelievers, for this is an abomination in the eyes of Allah"?

As for Christians, I'd point out two things, firstly, the Bible doesn't call on its followers to be quite as aggressive as the Koran does, and two, most if not all Christian countries (or formerly Christian countries, depending) have very large numbers of people in them who are not very religious, if at all. I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

djpbarry

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Can you imagine the difference we'd see if there were verses like "Convert all ye can, but do not do violence unto the unbelievers, for this is an abomination in the eyes of Allah"?

Do we know for sure that there is not such a verse? I only ask because I know that the Bible is full of contradictions, so I wouldn't be surprised if other holy books were too.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

...firstly, the Bible doesn't call on its followers to be quite as aggressive as the Koran does...

You sure about that? Surely it's a matter of interpretation?

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

...most if not all Christian countries (or formerly Christian countries, depending) have very large numbers of people in them who are not very religious, if at all.

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that?

ChocolateSauce

djpbarry wrote: »

Do we know for sure that there is not such a verse? I only ask because I know that the Bible is full of contradictions, so I wouldn't be surprised if other holy books were too.

The Koran has far fewer contradictions than the bible. If there is such a verse, I would argue it has been ignored in favour or other more hateful verses.

You sure about that? Surely it's a matter of interpretation?

Well I would think the interpretation which is currently popular is the one which has millions of Muslims on the streets of cities all over the world calling for the destruction of the west over a silly little cartoon.

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that?

Like the US, which is the only country in the world founded on secular principles? Like Spain, the (I think) third country to legalise gay marriage? Like Italy, where there is a great debate raging as to the right to die? If these countries were as devout as, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there would be secular state, no gay marriage and no debate. There is somewhere between 15-30% of the population of Italy and Spain who "do not believe there is a god", and while the average in the US is about 10%, the coasts have a much higher rating, while the inner "bible belt" has almost universal belief in god. Even so, among the people who call themselves Christian, how many would follow the bible strictly?

What I mainly meant was that in most liberal democracies, religion isn't allowed to do certain things, like have its biblical laws written into civil law. Many countries, France and the US in particular, make such interference highly illegal, and thus Christianity has been gaged. Compare the situation 300 years ago when the punishment for atheism was death.

nesf

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran?

If you want to state that you need to do more than merely point to violent verses and then to violent members of that religion. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

ChocolateSauce

nesf wrote: »

If you want to state that you need to do more than merely point to violent verses and then to violent members of that religion. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

Point agreed on, in principle. I do however think there is room for an intuitive leap. I also cannot actually put everything I have read, seen or heard into a thread on the internet.

asdasd

Most Christian countries? I disagree. Take for example the US, Italy, Spain, etc.

ChoclateSauce has already demolished your arguments, but even were those three correct you would have to look up the definition of "most", or ask a three year old.

If Wilders wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than make a mere assertion.

Who cares if he wants to be taken seriously, or not. Why is he not allowed to speak in "free" England, even were his arguments spurious - which I dont concede.

nesf

asdasd wrote: »

Who cares if he wants to be taken seriously, or not. Why is he not allowed to speak in "free" England, even were his arguments spurious - which I dont concede.

Oh, I think he should be allowed speak. I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.

Nodin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Are you saying they don't? Why would there be radical Muslims calling for Jihad if they didn't find justification in the Koran? .

Because they'll latch on to what they want to justify themselves? Thats why they're a minority.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I would say a secular way of life has put a gag order on the militant aspects of Christianity, something which cannot be said for Muslim countries.

Try some of American loons and get back to me.

asdasd wrote:

ChoclateSauce has already demolished your arguments.

Where?

ChocolateSauce

Nodin wrote: »

Because they'll latch on to what they want to justify themselves? Thats why they're a minority.

Well they seem to have latched onto the Koran.

Try some of American loons and get back to me.

Loons, they are. Militant, they are not. As I've said elsewhere, when was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of Christians in the streets throughout the western world demanding "death to Gaza" and that we "behead those who mock Jesus"?

Oh, I think he should be allowed speak. I just think his central argument in his film is spurious which was my disagreement with SeanW.

Voltaire wrote:

Though I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it