[Archived] Geert Wilders

[gillibrand]

Geert Wilders was refused entry into the UK yesterday, despite being invited by a British Lord to discuss a film he had made on the problems of the influx of Islamic terrorism into Holland and the UK. That one eyed Jock has done it again!

[ABBEY]

made me laugh the way all these people were giving there views on the film and hadnt actually seen it.

[philipl]

Totally opposed to this restriction on freedom of speech. Particularly as this guy comes over as a total prat.

[tony gale's mic]

It's a fine line but I'd say this decision was just about on the wrong side of it.

Still you have the usual Daily Mail numpties claiming how it's "yet another example of giving into Islamofacsism" or similar claptrap - there's been several radical Muslim clerics turned away under the same rules. Still, they were rather more radical than this bloke, as abhorrent as his views may be.

[gillibrand]

It's a fine line but I'd say this decision was just about on the wrong side of it.

Still you have the usual Daily Mail numpties claiming how it's "yet another example of giving into Islamofacsism" or similar claptrap - there's been several radical Muslim clerics turned away under the same rules. Still, they were rather more radical than this bloke, as abhorrent as his views may be.

Why do people refer to radical Muslim clerics being turned away from the UK when talking about Geert Wilders being turned away? Geert Wilders is a European MP democratically elected to the Dutch Parliament, and as such has the right to to come to the UK, his views are based on fact and he has not been convicted of any crime, but the British government have made themselves look cowardly and foolish in the rest of Europe and the USA, would they have accepted a British MP being turned away from another EU country?

[broadsword]

It's a fine line but I'd say this decision was just about on the wrong side of it.

Still you have the usual Daily Mail numpties claiming how it's "yet another example of giving into Islamofacsism" or similar claptrap - there's been several radical Muslim clerics turned away under the same rules. Still, they were rather more radical than this bloke, as abhorrent as his views may be.

Where are these usual "Daily Mail numpties" then? You seem to be agreeing with them that it's the wrong decision, whoever they are.

The bloke who said he would mobilize 10,000 Muslims to stop this man visiting, himself invited some guy called Israel Shamir to launch a book at the House of Lords. This guy apparently believes that jews kidnap christians to use their blood in rituals. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

You can't have one without the other.

[tony gale's mic]

Where are these usual "Daily Mail numpties" then? You seem to be agreeing with them that it's the wrong decision, whoever they are.

The bloke who said he would mobilize 10,000 Muslims to stop this man visiting, himself invited some guy called Israel Shamir to launch a book at the House of Lords. This guy apparently believes that jews kidnap christians to use their blood in rituals. Seems a little hypocritical to me.

You can't have one without the other.

I've seen them comment on various news sites, but while I agree it's the wrong decision (just about) I don't agree with those sentiments.

Why do people refer to radical Muslim clerics being turned away from the UK when talking about Geert Wilders being turned away? Geert Wilders is a European MP democratically elected to the Dutch Parliament, and as such has the right to to come to the UK, his views are based on fact and he has not been convicted of any crime, but the British government have made themselves look cowardly and foolish in the rest of Europe and the USA, would they have accepted a British MP being turned away from another EU country?

That gives him no more right than any other citizen. Adolf Hitler was the elected German president/chancellor and wasn't convicted of any crimes but if he came to air his particular brand of politics then I'm sure we'd all agree turning him away was the right decision. Not that I'm comparing this man to Hitler in any way shape or form but on principle that statement is wrong. How many British MPs go around making those statements?

And his views are based on fact? He believes all Muslims should be banned from entering the Netherlands and that all Muslims currently in the Netherlands should be given incentives to leave. He's compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and believes it should be similarly banned. He's drawn comparisons with Mohammed and Satan. Which one of those views is based on fact exactly?

A film railing against religious extremism and violence, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian etc is a worthy cause in my eyes. But that can be done without occupying the hateful and pig ignorant stances that Wilders chooses to adopt. He should have been allowed in as his views aren't extreme enough to warrant being turned away, but anyone willing to defend this man is well worthy of contempt too.

Or am I the only one who sees the massive irony in this man complaining of being denied freedom of speech, when he believes a religious text should be banned in his home country?

[Eddie]

Quite right not to let him in, such views should not be endorsed.

[gillibrand]

It is always good to have a sensible discussion, it is just a shame that Wilders was not given this opportunity, especially when you see the useless scum that the government do allow in, they should be renamed The Appeasement Party!

[tony gale's mic]

It is always good to have a sensible discussion, it is just a shame that Wilders was not given this opportunity, especially when you see the useless scum that the government do allow in, they should be renamed The Appeasement Party!

Which useless scum are you referring to and who would you say they are appeasing to?

This was a hard call to make either way.

[gillibrand]

Which useless scum are you referring to and who would you say they are appeasing to?

This was a hard call to make either way.

What is wrong with you?

[tony gale's mic]

What is wrong with you?

What? I'm asking a simple enough question...

[leftfooter]

It's a fine line but I'd say this decision was just about on the wrong side of it.

Still you have the usual Daily Mail numpties claiming how it's "yet another example of giving into Islamofacsism" or similar claptrap - there's been several radical Muslim clerics turned away under the same rules. Still, they were rather more radical than this bloke, as abhorrent as his views may be.

The 'radical' Moslems you refer too advocate suicide bombings, persecution of homosexuals and wife beating.

Wilders does not.

[tony gale's mic]

The 'radical' Moslems you refer too advocate suicide bombings, persecution of homosexuals and wife beating.

Wilders does not.

Yes I already stated this in my post that they're considerably worse than Wilders.

However, they're not being invited to speak at the House of Lords either.

I think Wilders should have been let in on the proviso that he doesn't use the House of Lords to broadcast what are (at the very least) borderline racist views. Being anti-immigration is one thing, wanting to restrict immigration against Muslims specifically and send them back is another. Being anti extremism is one thing but tarring all the followers of one religion with the same brush is something very different.

[leftfooter]

Yes I already stated this in my post that they're considerably worse than Wilders.

However, they're not being invited to speak at the House of Lords either.

I think Wilders should have been let in on the proviso that he doesn't use the House of Lords to broadcast what are (at the very least) borderline racist views. Being anti-immigration is one thing, wanting to restrict immigration against Muslims specifically and send them back is another. Being anti extremism is one thing but tarring all the followers of one religion with the same brush is something very different.

Fair enough. It might be that I'm missing something counter-intuitive but didn't Lord Ahmed drop his implacable opposition to unsavoury characters visiting the HOL when he invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh?. Rideh is a Palestinian previously detained on suspicion of fundraising for groups linked to al-Qaeda, to Westminster to meet him. When he was criticised for doing so, he said it was his parliamentary duty to hear Rideh's complaints. He does not appear to see any contradiction with the position he now adopts against his fellow peers.

Why do people refer to radical Muslim clerics being turned away from the UK when talking about Geert Wilders being turned away? Geert Wilders is a European MP democratically elected to the Dutch Parliament, and as such has the right to to come to the UK, his views are based on fact and he has not been convicted of any crime, but the British government have made themselves look cowardly and foolish in the rest of Europe and the USA, would they have accepted a British MP being turned away from another EU country?

I disagree with the travel ban, bit unfortunately as the Moslem population increases exponentially in Europe (Muhammad is the single most popular choice of baby boys' name in the UK), we might have to get used to such 'radical' preachers entering Britain as elected Parliamentarians.

[tony gale's mic]

I disagree with the above statement. What might happen in hundreds of years time is literally anyone's guess but there is zero chance of the likes of radical Muslim clerics being voted in as MPs in our lifetimes. The entire White/Afro Carribbean/Hindu/Chinese etc electorate would be against them, as would almost all educated Muslims.

[leftfooter]

I disagree with the above statement. What might happen in hundreds of years time is literally anyone's guess but there is zero chance of the likes of radical Muslim clerics being voted in as MPs in our lifetimes. The entire White/Afro Carribbean/Hindu/Chinese etc electorate would be against them, as would almost all educated Muslims.

The UK's saving grace at the moment is its 'first past the post' system, which tends to disadvantage fringe parties.

Having said that however, the voting system for the European elections is PR and no doubt the putative HOL will also use a form of PR. We must also factor in the number of radicals that are bound to be elected in places like France and Belgium, where the demographics favour Moslems. France has somethink like 5-7 million Moslems, which will only increase.

As an example I raise the case of The French author, Michelle Houellebecq (who I recommend heartily for his prose at least). He was prosecuted by the French authorities after an interview given to the French literary magazine Lire, in which he said the following: "...The dumbest religion, after all, is Islam. When you read the Koran, you're shattered. The Bible at least is beautifully written because the Jews have a heck of a literary talent..." Incredibly one of the complainants was the French Human Rights League. He was aquitted but now lives under threat in the West of Ireland.

This is the type of thing we are going to have to get used to.

[tony gale's mic]

While I think the fact that he's under threat isn't good at all, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. Religious texts are open to interpretation and always have been. Both the Qu'ran and the Bible preach some very positive messages as the cornerstones of their faith, the same rules by which anyone should live by.

But both encourage persecution of homosexuals, both have passages which seem to advocate the subjugation of women, and "an eye for an eye" is hardly the best way of dealing with conflicts. Whether the Koran has more of these passages is essentially quite a moot point when we're happily distributing the Bible to schoolchildren without giving its contents a thought.

And saying the Koran is poorly written is missing the point slightly unless he's fluent in Arabic and has made the judgements by reading it in that language.

[yoda]

While I think the fact that he's under threat isn't good at all, it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. Religious texts are open to interpretation and always have been. Both the Qu'ran and the Bible preach some very positive messages as the cornerstones of their faith, the same rules by which anyone should live by.

But both encourage persecution of homosexuals, both have passages which seem to advocate the subjugation of women, and "an eye for an eye" is hardly the best way of dealing with conflicts. Whether the Koran has more of these passages is essentially quite a moot point when we're happily distributing the Bible to schoolchildren without giving its contents a thought.

And saying the Koran is poorly written is missing the point slightly unless he's fluent in Arabic and has made the judgements by reading it in that language.

Just goes to show religion should be banned!

[tony gale's mic]

Just goes to show religion should be banned!

Nope, I'm not religious myself but religion has done more good for the world than bad IMO.

[yoda]

Nope, I'm not religious myself but religion has done more good for the world than bad IMO.

Try constructing a pros' and cons' list

I think you will find the cons' have it

[tony gale's mic]

A common misconception is that religion is behind all the wars in the world. Actually, if you look at the deadliest conflicts, both in the last 100 years and further back, most of them haven't been much to do with religion.

Religion provides a moral code for people and has helped shaped the laws of countries from ancient times, its the driving force in many peoples lives that encourage them to do better things, its behind a lot of charitable work, it provides hope and meaning for billions and the vast majority channel this in a positive manner.

Even though I'm not religious I think it's done a lot of good.

[yoda]

A common misconception is that religion is behind all the wars in the world. Actually, if you look at the deadliest conflicts, both in the last 100 years and further back, most of them haven't been much to do with religion.

Religion provides a moral code for people and has helped shaped the laws of countries from ancient times, its the driving force in many peoples lives that encourage them to do better things, its behind a lot of charitable work, it provides hope and meaning for billions and the vast majority channel this in a positive manner.

Even though I'm not religious I think it's done a lot of good.

did some one mention wars!

try more mundane items like what used to happen in catholic schools or persecution for insignificant beliefs, or persecution of women, just because they are women,

Like I said I think you will find the cons' have it

[tony gale's mic]

did some one mention wars!

try more mundane items like what used to happen in catholic schools or persecution for insignificant beliefs, or persecution of women, just because they are women,

Like I said I think you will find the cons' have it

Well I'd say its more subjugation than persecution, but this would almost certainly have happened even without religion. Society was generally more primitive back then and the physically strong (ie the men) would always have the say over the physically weaker women who had to bear children.

[thenodrog]

How shameful that we have to invite a politician in from another country to debate what our lot wont. By her silly action the lamentably weak and wobbly Jaquie Smith has raised the profile of this chap to levels that he could never have envisaged. He has received more publicity than he could have imagined.

Just a few applicable thoughts ..........

"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils".

"People are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles. If only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen".

"At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."

Hmmmm.... Our lot need to take a long hard look in a mirror.