Anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders refused entry to Britain

[aadil77]

The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders was turned away from Heathrow today after testing the Home Secretary’s ban on him entering the country.

Immigration officials denied the Dutch MP entry to the country after the Government decided he should not be allowed to attend a screening of his controversial anti-Islamist film tonight.

Mr Wilders said: "I am in a detention centre at Heathrow ... I am detained. They took my passport. I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours.”

On his flight to London, he told The Times that the British Government was “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe”.

”It is easy to invite people you agree with, it is more difficult to invite people you disagree with and this is the proof of the pudding," he said.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician (Lord Pearson of Rannoch). I am a democrat, I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me they are being nasty to freedom of speech.

He added: "They (the British government) are more Chamberlain than Churchill."

At 2.20pm, Mr Wilders was escorted through UK immigration by two plain-clothed officers and into the offices of the UK border agency.

At one stage, during the long walk from the plane to immigration, one of Mr Wilders’ bodyguards asked border agency guards to relax their grip on the MP.

The guards kept a tight hold on both Mr Wilders’s arms as they walked him through the airport followed by a gaggle of journalists and cameramen.

As he approached passport control, Mr Wilders was asked if he was nervous. He replied: “I’m not nervous. I’m just anxious to find out what will happen to me. Is this how Great Britain welcomes a democrat?”

Among those waiting for Mr Wilders in arrivals was Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP for London. “I thought it would be a nice touch to turn up and welcome him here if he gets through,” he said.

Mr Wilders, 45, an MP in the Netherlands, caught a British Midlands flight from Amsterdam this afternoon brandishing his passport and boarding pass. He said he would have to be physically restrained from entering the country. “I’ll see what happens at the border. Let them put me in handcuffs,” he said.

The MP was invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film, Fitna, at the House of Lords by the UKIP peer Lord Pearson.

The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead with or without Mr Wilders.

The Home Office decision to refuse Mr Wilders entry on account of his views provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister, to call David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, to protest at the decision. “The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,” Mr Verhagen said.

In the House of Lords today, the peer who invited Mr Wilders to Britain mounted a staunch defence of the right-wing Dutch politician’s right to show a controversial film about Islam.

Lord Pearson aid he disagreed with some of Mr Wilders’ views but believed he should be allowed to express them.

He asked Home Office minister Lord West of Spithead: “Do you think this situation would occur if Mr Wilders had said ban the Bible. If it would not have occurred, why would it not have occurred?”

“Surely the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film in this country is not caused by the film which attempts to show merely how the violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts.

“The violence is coming from the Jihadist, the violent Islamist, and surely the Government in doing what it has done is therefore guilty of appeasement.”

Lord West replied: “I certainly don’t think we are guilty of appeasement in any way whatsoever. I don’t want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case of what if he talked about this, what if he talked about that.”

He told peers: “Under European law a member state of the European Economic Area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.”

link: http://shirhashirim.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/lelijk-geertje.jpg

comments?

 

[Pomak]

He isn't an "anti-Islamist" he's a bigot who hates Islam and has said as much.

And its nice to see that the poms are applying their laws.

 

[glo]

I have mixed feelings about this.
By denying him entry into the UK the government have given him ammunition to declare himself victimised and to accuse the UK government of 'giving in fearfully to extremist Muslim elements'. Neither is constructive, and I am sure Wilders will be able to use these to his advantage.

Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.
Fighting his hateful claims with kindness and peace would be much more effective!

Peace

 

[Pomak]

I have mixed feelings about this.
Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.

Thus legitimizing him and his views?

 

[glo]

Thus legitimizing him and his views?

No, thus refuting him and making his claims void.

 

[glo]

Here is an article I found interesting:

Thanks to the Government’s ban, Mr Wilders - who allows no room for debate about his strident anti-Islamist views - could not be exposed for his own intolerance. He has instead claimed the moral high ground by calling the Government “cowards”. Even moderate Muslims seemed to play into his hands: the ban was supported by the Muslim Council of Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article5725776.ece

Peace

 

[Pomak]

No, thus refuting him and making his claims void.

You can easily refute him without giving him credibility. Anyways its impossible to "invite" him to the UK since he is barred.

Each to their own.

 

[Trumble]

comments?

A mistake.

Partly because, however reprehensible (and they are reprehensible) the man's ideas may be, I don't like the idea of politicians deciding who can say what and travel where on a whim. This was done purely on the basis of the fact his presence might 'upset' people (rather than any real risk of inciting hatred or violence) and that simply isn't an acceptable reason for denying an individual his rights, whatever you may happen to think of him.

And mostly because, just like all the initial fuss about the film, if people had just ignored both it and him 99.9% of them wouldn't even be aware of the existence of either.

 

[K.Venugopal]

I think we should not be naive. Islam has a history of being opposed, as has probably all religions. Why this sudden fear that opposing Islam (and that too in the realm of non-violent persuasion) will lead to the sky falling down? A good debate does nobody any harm except increase our tolerance levels. I, as a Hindu, would have absolutely no objection to Hinduism being criticized in debate without any call to arms.

 

[Trumble]

Why this sudden fear that opposing Islam (and that too in the realm of non-violent persuasion) will lead to the sky falling down?

Another problem here, being frank, is that there is a now a distinct perception among many Britons of other religious that Islam is being treated differently than everybody else in such matters. I do think we need to honestly ask if this man would have been prohibited from entering the UK if his film referred to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Hindu scriptures or, indeed, anything but the Qur'an, no matter how much it happened to offend anybody?

 

[aamirsaab]

I would have liked to see Wilders get refuted (by just about everyone) but that isn't what he was coming to the UK for.

 

[aadil77]

I have mixed feelings about this.
By denying him entry into the UK the government have given him ammunition to declare himself victimised and to accuse the UK government of 'giving in fearfully to extremist Muslim elements'. Neither is constructive, and I am sure Wilders will be able to use these to his advantage.

Perhaps a better strategy would have been to allow him entry into the UK, and to invite him to a public debate with knowledgeable Muslim scholars - people who can expose his anti-Islamic statements for what they are and who can refute his claims about Islam.
Fighting his hateful claims with kindness and peace would be much more effective!

Peace

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

 

[K.Venugopal]

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

No book should be banned. Even a book Geert Wilders might write titled "Why I think the Quran should be banned." In India some years ago someone petitioned the High Court calling for a ban on the Quran. The court accepted the petition without prima facie rejecting it and this created a huge controversy. The government of the day moved quick to get the petition rejected and the matter ended there. Of course, everyone jumps the gun in matters like these and nothing can be discussed rationally in the ensuing havoc. Imagine, if all concerned with it had held their horses and let proceed the ‘for and against’ arguments. We would have been privy to a great debate and many misunderstandings about the Quran would have been clarified within the space of civilized discourse. The Quran would have justified itself even amongst those non-Muslims who looked upon it suspiciously.

India also banned The Satanic Verses fearing street violence. No book should be banned, even books that may be considered as having only nuisance value. We can always learn something from everyone - even from idiots (at least the lesson that idiocy is a possibility waiting to pop up from the most unexpected quarters).

 

[glo]

I don't think the debate would have ended just there, think again - this is a man that wants the Quran to be banned, he would have stopped at nothing create outrage in this country. This is why the UK Govt banned him on the grounds of a threat to public safety.

Imagine if I said the the bible should be banned?

If anybody declared that the Bible should be banned, I would feel upset and hurt too. I am not saying that I cannot understand Muslims feeling that way.

The point I was trying to make is that banning Wilders from this country will not make him or his claims disappear. Neither would aggressive responses, death threats or fatwas achieve this.
The only way to counteract the damage he is trying to cause would be to engage with him and peacefully debate and refute his claims - publically, so the whole world can witness the event.

At the moment all we seem to have is a spiteful propaganda film, which - to my understanding - contains very little facts, but has the potential to cause much damage.

Now, it is of course possible that Wilders has no interest to engage in a proper public debate.
But we won't know unless he is invited to do so. If he was invited and refused, that would speak volumes for itself - and he would loose his credibility.
If he did accept the invitation, knowledgeable Muslims would have the opportunity to set the record straight!

Just my own thoughts, of course ...

 

[alcurad]

^agree
certain books and views should be-and are- banned though, what about holocaust revisionists? three words, hypocrisy doesn't work..
unrestrained freedom is not good, as simple as that.

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Alhamdulillaah.

 

[Suomipoika]

I fear Europe is heading to a direction where people are valued differently and offered better protection from insults or racism based on religion or ethnicity. There are plenty of people who belong to various hate groups who openly travel to UK. First one who comes to my mind is the holocaust denier Fredrick Töben (the Australian who was allowed to stay in UK after the German attempts to extradite him failed).

 

[Zafran]

salaam

wilders is hiding behind free specch and wants the Quran banned?

isnt that violiting freedom of speech in itself. Banning a book is against freedom of speech is it not?

is this not hypocricy?

 

[Pomak]

A mistake.

Partly because, however reprehensible (and they are reprehensible) the man's ideas may be, I don't like the idea of politicians deciding who can say what and travel where on a whim. This was done purely on the basis of the fact his presence might 'upset' people (rather than any real risk of inciting hatred or violence) and that simply isn't an acceptable reason for denying an individual his rights, whatever you may happen to think of him.

And mostly because, just like all the initial fuss about the film, if people had just ignored both it and him 99.9% of them wouldn't even be aware of the existence of either.

UK has used this legislation to ban muslim 'preachers' because it considered them "preachers of hate". And to me that is worse than banning politicians, not because i agree with those preachers,(heck no) but if were going to bend the rules for anything it would be for religious leaders rather than politicians.

And the film was basically ignored by most muslims. (i think some of the eastern European Muslims had a screening of the film where they gave a counter film)

I fear Europe is heading to a direction where people are valued differently and offered better protection from insults or racism based on religion or ethnicity. There are plenty of people who belong to various hate groups who openly travel to UK. First one who comes to my mind is the holocaust denier Fredrick Töben (the Australian who was allowed to stay in UK after the German attempts to extradite him failed).

Well we have this concept "do not mock/ridicule their gods, lest they (out of ignorance) lash out and mock Allah (aka god/g*d)". Or if you want something more "western" look up definition of tolerance. (thats on the issue of this law should exist or not)

I really hope were not suggesting that laws should be applied to Muslims when they transgress, but not to those that transgress Muslims. Because muslims have been barred from UK because of this law. Also do you believe Holocaust denial should be a crime(as it is in a few EU countries?)

 

[Trumble]

I really hope were not suggesting that laws should be applied to Muslims when they transgress, but not to those that transgress Muslims. Because muslims have been barred from UK because of this law. Also do you believe Holocaust denial should be a crime(as it is in a few EU countries?)

No, I was not suggesting that. However, as I said, the point is that the film been about the Bible, say (and an analogous version would be quite easy to do, should you be so minded), this would not have happened. I claimed merely that there is a common perception that a double standard exists, and IMHVO not without justification.

No, I do not believe Holocaust denial should be a crime. The reasons why are best explained by, and originate with, John Stuart Mill. You want chapter II.