Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Far-right Dutch MP refused entry to UK

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:13 PM
Original message
Far-right Dutch MP refused entry to UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/12/far-right-dutch-mp-ban-islam

Immigration officials prevent Geert Wilders leaving Heathrow airport to attend showing of his film about 'fascist' Qur'an at House of Lords

Geert Wilders, the rightwing Dutch politician accused of Islamophobia, was today refused entry to the UK after arriving at Heathrow airport in London.

Wilders was due to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Qur'an as a "fascist book", at the House of Lords today. But on Tuesday he received a letter from the Home Office refusing him entry because his opinions "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety".

He arrived at Heathrow shortly after 2pm and was questioned by immigration officials.

On the plane from Amsterdam, the controversial leader of the Freedom party told Dutch journalists he had travelled to Britain in December without any fuss. "I don't see why there's a problem with me this time," he said. "I don't understand why they allowed me to come before and not now."

Asked whether he had a message for the UK government, he said: "I would say to them, 'Even if you don't like me and don't like the things I say then you should let me in for freedom of speech. If you don't, you are looking like cowards.'"

Fitna intersperses images of the September 11 attacks with quotations from the Islamic holy book and its release last year sparked violent protests in the Muslim world. In 2007, Wilders called for the Qur'an to be banned and likened it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Last month, an Amsterdam court ruled that he should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred but Wilders has appealed against the decision.

The Home Office letter, sent on behalf of the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said Wilders's presence in the UK "would pose a genuine, present and significantly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The secretary of state is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in the film and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public safety in the UK."

The Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, said his government would press for a reversal of the travel ban on Wilders, and a UK Independence party peer, Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to Britain, said the screening of the film would go ahead today, whether he was there or not.

Speaking outside the House of Lords, Pearson said he disagreed with some of Wilders's views but was "coming at this from the angle of free speech". Pearson described the Dutch politician as a "very brave man" and said he did not think he was a racist.

"I think this man is raising one of the most important issues of our time, which is Islamic militarism, which is a violent jihad," said Pearson. "That's the issue that this man is raising, and I think that should be discussed much more, particularly amongst the vast majority of the mild Muslim community."

The peer initially said he did not believe there should be any limits to freedom of speech but when pressed conceded that there should be "a very few", such as language that incited violence. Pearson said he believed a Hitler-type figure should be allowed to speak in public in Britain. "I would go and laugh at him. You couldn't take him seriously, could you?" he said.

The peer revealed he had put down a motion for debate in the Lords urging the government to sponsor a conference into whether the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an contained justification for violence.

The National Secular Society president, Terry Sanderson, said he wrote to the home secretary saying she should not have denied an application by a "democratically elected politician from a sovereign state who wants to come and express an opinion".

"It may be a controversial opinion but he is entitled to express it," he said.

The Home Office has said it would "stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country".

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain described Wilders as "an open and relentless preacher of hate".

"We have no problem with the challenge of criticisms to our faith, but the film that will be screened by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox is nothing less than a cheap and tacky attempt to whip up hysteria against Muslims," he said.

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said that while it was important to defend freedom of speech, Wilders "has overstepped the line that should be defended in a civilised society".

Wilders said he had already shown his film to Denmark's parliament and intended to take it to Italy and the US House of Representatives in the coming weeks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Panel member on Question Time
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 07:23 AM by Albus
“Personally, I am uncomfortable with censorship. Does Mr Wilders have the right to provoke or even be offensive? Yes, he does under freedom of speech, and if he’s being barred from the country simply because he offends people’s religious sensibilities then no matter how personally distasteful I might find his views, I wouldn’t support a ban."


Salma Yaqoob - Birmingham City councillor and the leader of the left-wing coalition, Respect.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Horrible man - but the ban will just give him more publicity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ex Lurker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good for the UK. Hate speech does not equal free speech n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. It seems to me that the acid test of whether you believe in Free Speech
is whether or not you are prepared to stand up for people you dislike to say things that you disagree with.

I am, and so is Salma Yaqoob and Peter Tatchell

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11132.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The thing is, 'free speech' laws generally refer to the rights of citizens
They do not mean that a country can't exclude people it dislikes from visiting. As long as there are borders, no one has an absolute human right to visit another country (I'm not talking about expatriate citizens, relatives of citizens, or asylum seekers; but just people who feel like a visit).

I would disapprove of a country exercising the right of exclusion too frequently but nonetheless it is a *right*.

Would you consider that Omar Bakri should have the right to come here and try to rally Muslims to turn against Britain? Would you consider that Fred Phelps should have the right to come here and scream about how we deserved the London bombings and other disasters because we have liberal laws on homosexuality?

If you really do think that Bakri should have unlimited right to come to Britan and promote his views, then OK, you're a freedom-of-speech absolutist, and I can respect, but not agree with it. But if you would defend Wilders' right to 'freedom of speech in Britain', but not others, then you are being selective.

I'm not sure what I think about the Wilders ban - I think it may give him more publicity than just letting him in and ignoring him- but, while he may have a human right to freedom of speech, he doesn't have a human right to come *here* to exercise it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Albus Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. well in reply to...
<i>Would you consider that Omar Bakri should have the right to come here and try to rally Muslims to turn against Britain? Would you consider that Fred Phelps should have the right to come here and scream about how we deserved the London bombings and other disasters because we have liberal laws on homosexuality? </i>


I would extend the right to free speech to anyone to say anything as long as they were not inciting to violence, which I don't believe that Wilders or his poxy film does.

"Hate speech" is a very broad and flexible definition & liable to be redefined by anyone who cares to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
6. Keeping him out was illiberal and totally self-defeating
It gave Wilders and his film vastly more publicity than it would otherwise have enjoyed, and generally made the government look like the ham-fisted authoritarian asses they are, causing Britain international embarrasment and needlessly antagonising one of its closest European partners.
Wilders voices unpopular opinions about an ideological (in this case, religious) system. If Chris Huhne believes this "oversteps the line that should be defended in a civilised society", then he clearly places no importance upon freedom of speech whatsoever. Free speech may not mean you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or that you can harangue someone in the street with personal invective, or indeed that you can incite violence against others. But if it doesn't mean you can criticise an ideology with which you disagree, then it means absolutely nothing. To admit the obvious reality that the right to free speech has to co-exist with people's right to personal safety does not in any way open the door - which the government, its supporters and apparently the "Liberal" Democrats have long ago charged through headlong (see religious hatred act debacle)- to asserting that freedom of speech must bow before some right to not have the ideological beliefs one subscribes too questioned or criticised.
The other ludicrous justification used for these assualts on free speech seems to be that criticising something is, effectiviely, intrinsically an incitement of violence towards it. If that's the case, I'm expecting a knock at the door any moment from the rozzers about that BNP bloke that was murdered...

And as for the MCB, well, people in glass houses and all that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » United Kingdom Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC