Dutch Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders was thrown out of the country after he had been invited to show his controversial film in the UK's House of Lords, by UKIPs Lord Pearson. This says a lot about UKIP.
So after flying here, he isn't allowed to enter the country, the whole process is filmed to ensure maximum publicity for the bigot. Could they have managed the affair in a worse way, the man is now famous.
Now heres an idea, why not allow him to enter the country, and then arrest him under The Racial and Religious Hatred Act, then kick him out. Its an offence of inciting (or 'stirring up') hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. Brown would have looked much better doing this, instead of like a coward or fool. Mr Wilders is facing similar charges in his own country for inciting hatred. He called the Koran a "fascist book", his controversial film links the Islamic holy book to terrorism.
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 Labour people are famous for their respect for the law and spin; Illegal war, dodgy dossier, Peers for hire, Prescott beating up a protestor, corrupt Kieth Vaz, Mandleson etc.
1 year ago
6 comments:
Adrian; I like your blog, have met you more than once, and have a lot of time for your views...mostly.
But I really have to take issue with you here. I have to ask first of all if you have actually watched the film at all! It doesn't seem like it.
the whole process is filmed to ensure maximum publicity for the bigot.
I don't think unelected Lord Ahmed needs more publicity (I assume you meant him)....after all he's well known for the homophobic anti-semitic rantings of the various nasty pieces of work the unelected Lord Ahmed has invited over the years? Like Ibrahim Moussawi who described Jews as ‘a lesion on the forehead of history’ but got a six-month visa so that he could speak at a conference in London on Islam.
No blog entry for that?
Oh, and unlike Lord Ahmed, Geert Wilders didn't kill anyone while texting and driving, did he?
I don't think Wilders is the danger to the UK, it's Lord Ahmed.
Your view is very much in the minority; a poll for the Guardian came out with 84.5% saying banning Wilders was wrong, as did 80% on the UK's largest student forum. Most Islamic commentators also disagreed with the ban, as did 100% of the audience and panellists Janet Street Porter, Denis MacShane, David Davis and Jo Swinson on Any Questions on Radio 4.
As did Respect's Salma Yaqoob (and Monty Don!).
However, watching Kelvin MacKenzie, Justine Greening and especially Liam Byrne wriggling on Question Time was shameful as was reading Chris Huhne and Lord Ahmed's defence in The Guardian.
And how and why would he be arrested under The Racial and Religious Hatred Act? Islam isn't a race, and we're constantly being told by Jacqui "Jackboot" Smith that these are unislamic acts, so it wouldn't be under religious grounds either.
Or are we really saying that we need to be told what is offensive? Worse still, by doing this we are treating Muslims like children. All the ban does is insult and belittle everyone on both sides.
OR are we saying that because violence was threatened by extremists if Wilders came, then we say "If you threaten violence, we will bow"? If so, we're only one step away from what India did today when it bowed to violence and appeased Al Qaeda by introducing the barbaric form of Sharia law to a province in return for a cessation of violence?
Please don't get caught up in the appeasement movement, Adrian. You're not Martin Salter, you're not trying to buy cheap and dirty votes, and that's why we like you!
So, bottom line is; are you more uncomfortable with the fact that a man has made a video, without commentary, of acts of Islamofascism and terrorism, than of the terrorism itself?
And as for the fact that his film "links the Islamic holy book to terrorism" - well, he shows a text from the book, he then shows a hatepreacher using that same quote, and then shows a resulting act.
What link would you like to see him draw instead?
Firstly, I didn't agree with banning Geert, I suggested that if he had committed a crime he should be arrested. The blog was attacking the way Labour have been managing Geert Wilders visit, so we are in agreement. I also attacked what Lord Ahmed said, so again we are in agreement.
The quote you take of mine is referring to the media watching Geert fly to England to ensure max publicity, not the film he made, or Lord Ahmed. I desribe Geert as a bigot as he facing charges in his own country for inciting hatred, and from his own statements, I don't need to watch his film to learn that.
To hear that Lord Ahmed is a hypocrite somehow does not surprise me, there are few Labour Peers that can be respected, many should be denobled (become commoners again), especially the ones who bought their positions. If he is guilty of dangerous driving he should face the consequences, even if its jail.
You ask what link I would like to see from him; I think that hate and extremism can lead to violence. There are violent extremists from most religions, and most 'religious war' turns out to be politically motivated; to focus on Islam and ignore everything else will solve nothing. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of a few is similar with saying all politicians are liars, though we all know that several are.
See http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11132.html for Peter Tatchells views on this.
"The Home Secretary is guilty of gross hypocrisy".
"She gives visas to demagogues who incite violence and murder, while banning from the UK a Dutch MP who has never incited violence against anyone.
"I do not agree with Mr Wilders, but he has never threatened violence against Muslims.
Adrian; fair points. You now have me wondering whether I mis-interpreted your original post.
I'm not sure that I did. I would point out that Wilders hasn't been charged and I'd also say "what happened to innocent until proven guilty", which would make me a hypocrite as I mentioned Lord Ahmeds pending case, except you could then apply the same test to both!
Wilders hasn't been convicted of any crime, nor has Lord Ahmed.
However, Wilders' alleged crime was a thought-crime, rather than a smashing-into-a-car crime.
Just saw your second post regarding Peter Tatchell's views.
I think this is where it gets interesting; a lot of left-wing commentators and politicians have been caught wrong-footed by this.
I expect JackBoot Smith was expecting the likes of Tatchell and Guardian readers to rally round and nod in dhimmitudinal (is there such a word?!) reverence.
If you look at Liam Byrne's face as Jonathan Dumbledore put various accusations to him, and you look at the comments under the anti-Wilders editorials and comment pieces in the Guardian, it looked like they were expecting "the left" to come out and applaud them for "bravely fighting the neo-fascists". Instead, the left and the right are united against this bizarre act.
Have a look on iplayer if you didn't see that particular bit - Byrne is totally gobsmacked by the lack of applause for his point, and just cannot answer any of the accusations put to him.
'tis a thing of beauty to watch, I tell you!
Anyway, you make your points well so no faith lost. Unlike them Lib-Dems...
Laters. Sleep time now. The cocoa is getting cold
Good points digitaltoast. And I saw QT, it was deeply disapointing, the big three parties have so little to say. They are very cautious, dont want to make a mistake, but try to sound populist.
I agree people are innocent till proven guilty, in the case of Ahmed and Geert the law should run its course.
Post a Comment