Dutch MP banned from entering UK

[Allister]

A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" says he still plans to travel to the UK despite being banned on public security grounds.

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders was invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.


But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office.



He plans to fly into Heathrow later, saying: "Let's see what happens."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm

 

[Joachim]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm

Europe has just lost all moral authority to say anything critical about us when it relates to civil rights. This man would not be banned from entering this country because we actually welcome free speech and the exchange of ideas.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Europe has just lost all moral authority to say anything critical about us when it relates to civil rights. This man would not be banned from entering this country because we actually welcome free speech and the exchange of ideas.

Don't you mean the UK has lost? The last I checked, the United Kingdom is still just, oh well, 1/50-53 part of what stands for "Europe."

Who are people barred from Britain?

About 80 of those barred have been so-called "preachers of hate".

Among those refused entry is Lebanon-based cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed, the former head of the now-disbanded group al-Muhajiroun, which gained notoriety for praising the 9/11 hijackers.

In 2005 the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke used existing powers to exclude Mr Mohammed as his presence was "not conducive to the public good".

Other preachers to have raised the ire of the authorities include Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, from the US, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who lives in Qatar.

In February 2008 Muslim cleric Mr al-Qaradawi was refused a visa, because the Home Office said the UK would not tolerate the presence of those who sought to justify acts of terrorist violence.

The Egyptian-born cleric was described at the time as "dangerous and divisive" by Conservative leader David Cameron.

Ah yes. The good ole hypocrisy. I'm sure we all still remember the huge righteous public outcry (here on the Christian Forums, too!), this time last year when the Muslim cleric was refused entry on the same grounds than the blond Mr. Wilders, right? I mean, don't we...?

 

[Joachim]

Don't you mean the UK has lost? The last I checked, the United Kingdom is still just, oh well, 1/50-53 part of what stands for "Europe."

Who are people barred from Britain?



Ah yes. The good ole hypocrisy. I'm sure we all still remember the huge righteous public outcry (here on the Christian Forums, too!), this time last year when the Muslim cleric was refused entry on the same grounds than the blond Mr. Wilders, right? I mean, don't we...?

Please define the charge "inciting hatred" for me because we don't have such an offense anywhere in America. Inciting an emotion doesn't qualify in this country for a criminal sanction.


In the United States, we actually have settled case law where a majority Jewish community was ordered by a court to allow a Nazi group to hold a march. It is American Nazi Party v Skokie, Illinois and it is from the 1970s. See, the thing that would never be allowed in most European countries we protect because it is a part of the freedom we hold dear, even if we wouldn't mind civilians spraying rat poison at the Nazis in question.


Britain once refused Louis Farrakhan entry to their country. They recognize he is a hate monger. In this country, he's allowed to have a platform even though he is an unrepentant bigot because that's such an enshrined and sacred right in this country.

 

[Kalevalatar]

See, the thing that would never be allowed in most European countries we protect because it is a part of the freedom we hold dear, even if we wouldn't mind civilians spraying rat poison at the Nazis in question.

Please feel free to name out of the 50+ European countries the ones in which this "freedom you hold dear" is not protected.

In this country, he's allowed to have a platform even though he is an unrepentant bigot because that's such an enshrined and sacred right in this country.

Really? Are you sure that is still the case? Or maybe you just fell asleep when your sacred rights began disappearing?

Remember, for instance, the distinguished South African professor Adam Habib, a prominent human rights activist, a world-renowned scholar of democracy, governance, and social movements, a deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, a popular visiting US lecturer, and incidentally, a vocal critic of of U.S. foreign policy and lately especially President Bush's war in Iraq? Denied entry to the US.

Do you believe Prof. Habib's case is a single incident? Or is it possible that after eight years of the Bush administration, there could be a long list of similar intellectual vocal critics of US/Bush's foreign policy who have had their entry denied despite the First Amendment? Looks like a classic straw in your own eye. Perhaps you should worry about those "enshrined and sacred rights" in your own country and make sure they are still there, and let other countries' taxpayer-voters worry about theirs?

Seems to me that in the UK, the undesirable visitors are denied entry for their presense not being "conducive to the public good". In the United States of America, they get categorically labelled "terrorist" and voilá! suddenly none of those "enshrined and sacred rights" apply. Deny their entry because they "preach hate" and get blamed for hating "free speech". Simply label them terrorists and all mouths are magically shut and no one mentions the sacred "free speech". Very clever trick indeed.

 

[Baggins]

Britain once refused Louis Farrakhan entry to their country. They recognize he is a hate monger. In this country, he's allowed to have a platform even though he is an unrepentant bigot because that's such an enshrined and sacred right in this country.

If Mr Farrakhan were British he would be allowed to have a platform in the UK even if he were an unrepentant bigot because that is such an enshrined and sacred right in our country that our fellow countrymen who set up your country borrowed it and transferred it.

We have no problem with letting our own unrepentant bigots have their say we just don't feel the need to borrow yours or the Dutch people's so they can come and stir up hatred.

 

[LightHorseman]

Britain once refused Louis Farrakhan entry to their country. They recognize he is a hate monger. In this country, he's allowed to have a platform even though he is an unrepentant bigot because that's such an enshrined and sacred right in this country.

Ah, but Farrakhan is an American citizen, is he not? Does the US allow anyone to enter the US to preach whatever they want, or has the US ever denied anyone entry on ideological grounds?

 

[rambot]

Kalevalatar

Farrakhan is an American citizen, is he not? Does the US allow anyone to enter the US to preach whatever they want, or has the US ever denied anyone entry on ideological grounds?

See Kalevalatar's post before yours.

Not 100% related but a good read about the loss of liberties in the US post 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

 

[LightHorseman]

Kalevalatar

See Kalevalatar's post before yours.

Not 100% related but a good read about the loss of liberties in the US post 9/11
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Remember, for instance, the distinguished South African professor Adam Habib, a prominent human rights activist, a world-renowned scholar of democracy, governance, and social movements, a deputy vice chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, a popular visiting US lecturer, and incidentally, a vocal critic of of U.S. foreign policy and lately especially President Bush's war in Iraq? Denied entry to the US.

Thanks for pointing that out

 

[keith99]

Somehow this point has been ignored so far:

Mr Wilders was asked to show the film at the House of Lords by UK Independence Party peer Lord Pearson.

Now I'm not up on British Parties or political figures, but it seems if he is invited by the someone in the House of Lords it goes a long way to establishing that there is some interest in hearing what he has to say. A country is free to deny entry to whoever it likes, but it seems not everyone wants him silenced.

 

[Ave Maria]

Well, if he travels to the UK and gets arrested, I can't say that I'd blame the government of the UK for arresting him.

Also, calling the Koran a fascist book is hate speech in my opinion. That is just wrong. The Koran is not a fascist book. It is the holy book of the Muslims. Fascism didn't even exist when the Koran was written.

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, if he travels to the UK and gets arrested, I can't say that I'd blame the government of the UK for arresting him.

Also, calling the Koran a fascist book is hate speech in my opinion. That is just wrong. The Koran is not a fascist book. It is the holy book of the Muslims. Fascism didn't even exist when the Koran was written.

Is calling "Mein Kempf" a "fascist book" hate speech?

 

[Kalevalatar]

Ah, but Farrakhan is an American citizen, is he not? Does the US allow anyone to enter the US to preach whatever they want, or has the US ever denied anyone entry on ideological grounds?

Yup. Ideological exclusion experienced a renaissance under the Bush administration. Label intellectuals like Tariq Ramadan, critical to Bush administration policies, "terrorists" or "terrorist sympathizer" and deny their entry on those grounds.

Uncle Sam doesn't want you
Foreign scholars denied visas say they are still waiting to hear why

When US bars its door to foreign scholars
A lawsuit wants the Bush administration to explain why it denied entry to intellectuals who've criticized US policy.


Scholars Excluded from the United States

 

[Allister]

What ever happened to the idea....."I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Baggins]

I actually think they should have allowed him, and Farrakhan for that matter, in. But the man is a professional controversist and self publicist with an irrational hatred for Muslims so I can't say I really give a stuff.

Other peoples beliefs are worth defending up until the spill over into things like hate speech that incites others, I think this guy has crossed that line.

If the UKIP guy is so keen to see the film he can nip over to Amsterdam, it only takes 30 min by plane and only costs £30-40 .

 

[Baggins]

<staff edit>

All religions have their crazies and all are equally adept at using their religious beliefs to justify murder whether it be a Christian anti-abortionist, a Muslim suicide bomber, a Hindu attacking Muslims on an Indian train, even buddhists do it.

Killing the infidel is a component of all religions not just Muslims.

 

[rambot]

Is calling "Mein Kempf" a "fascist book" hate speech?

Either I'm dreaming or I swear I've read that exact same sentence on CF before. I recall that person was dismissed pretty quick.
I'll leave my rebuttal to this:

Trying to create a metaphor comparing "Mein Kempf" to the Qu'ran indicates a dangerous ignorance in the contents of one or both books.

<staff edit>

 

[CoyoteUgly]

Britain is the new homeland of the jihadists. America expends a lot of energy monitoring the buzz of jihadists who now call Britian home. Maybe that has something to do with them not wanting Wilders stirring up the nest of hornets that must be appeased at all costs.

I have no interest in the Koran. It is not holy for me. It is not even interesting. It is at best trite and uninspired commentary of the existing religions of the day.

For sure though, in the hands of the Islamists, it is a fascist book that strengthens them in their fascists tendencies.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

Well, if he travels to the UK and gets arrested, I can't say that I'd blame the government of the UK for arresting him.

......

Fascists in general don't care much for free speech either. By definition, strong-armed tactics of the government are very pleasing to fascists. They like the idea of the government controlling the thoughts and tongues of those that agree with them.

Now we all know who you are.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

What ever happened to the idea....."I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It is not politically correct, therefore antiquated.