Dutch MP banned from entering UK

[Baggins]

It isn't very helpful throwing the word fascist to describe things that aren't actually fascist.

It devalues and depowers the word as a description for real situations.

The nearest thing to real fascism that the world has seen in recent years was actually the Bush administration, which was both authoritarian and nationalist, the main identifiers of Fascism. Certainly the attempts to smear all criticisms of their administration as unpatriotic was straight out of Fascism 101. Although in other ways it differed from classic fascism - in that it wasn't socially interventionist and there was no crusade to transform society. National Corporatism the mixing of government and big business was also a hall mark of the Bush administration which was more or less run by the military Industrial complex is the form of Dick Cheney.

But having said that calling the Bush administration fascist is surely a misnomer as it is in conjuntion with Islamic terrorists and any other Western Government.

I wouldn't have called Bush really fascist unless he had made a power grab to become totalitarian.

 

[Baggins]

It is not politically correct, therefore antiquated.

Not politically correct?????

The limits of free speech have never been unbounded in any society at any time. And political correctness is just another word for being polite and using labels people don't object to when describing them.

Scratch most people who rail against political correctness and you'll find a racist. Political correctness can go too far so it becomes a sort of cultural cringe by overly sensitive white people and this can become institutionalised to ludicrous effect, but generally, as I said, it is simple manners.

 

[Allister]

I don't think an MP of a fellow EU nation should have been banned from entering the UK just because some people don't like his opinions.

I would have much preferred for people to engage him and his followers in critical debate and show how these people are in error, rather than censoring him.

 

[Baggins]

I don't think an MP of a fellow EU nation should have been banned from entering the UK just because some people don't like his opinions.

I don't think that was the reason why he was turfed out, he was turfed out because his presence was not conducive to the public good - he would have stirred up hatred and anger and probably cost us hundreds of thousands in police overtime. If people want to listen to him really badly they can catch a flight to Amsterdam, his film is also available on the internet.

He was told he wasn't welcome and he came anyway because this pipsqueek is the worst king of self publicist and media harlot.

I would have much preferred for people to engage him and his followers in critical debate and show how these people are in error, rather than censoring him.

He doesn't need to come come to the Mother of Parliaments and spew his bile to be debated.

This is the old - no platform for fascists - argument writ large. Why do we have to allow him to come over to our country spewing his poisonous views?

Fascists aren't interested in debate they are interested in publicity, his actions in coming to a country he knew he wouldn't be allowed into show that.

The man is a poisonous boil on humanity's botty he wasn't coming to have intelligent debate he was coming to incite racial hatred. I'm glad we told him he is persona non grata.

 

[John of Australia]

Not politically correct?????

The limits of free speech have never been unbounded in any society at any time. And political correctness is just another word for being polite and using labels people don't object to when describing them.

Scratch most people who rail against political correctness and you'll find a racist. Political correctness can go too far so it becomes a sort of cultural cringe by overly sensitive white people and this can become institutionalised to ludicrous effect, but generally, as I said, it is simple manners.

'Racist' is just a smear word used to browbeat people in to being too scared to voice legitimate opinions arising from race-based issues. It is tool used to demonise, vilify, and intimidate. It is also used to whip up hysteria in order to restrict the parameters of debate in regards to racial issues.

Therefore, the word 'racist' is part and parcel of the politically correct arsenal. They invent these words so they don't have to refute arguments. Others include 'sexist', 'homophobic', and 'nativist'. If I said I'd prefer 100 male soldiers to protect me in a war zone because men are stronger and faster than women, a leftist would know that this argument is true and cannot be countered. He would therefore label me a 'sexist' to compensate for his lack of a rational argument.

Political correctness is much more than manners as you imply. It's the taking down of Christmas decorations, removing piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims, and a book about Timmy and his wonderful two daddies. In short, it's the gangrene which is spreading through Western civilisation.

 

[Allister]

he was turfed out because his presence was not conducive to the public good

That sounds almost Orwellian in tone.

he would have stirred up hatred and anger

Would he? I doubt that. The only ones on the streets in anger and hate would have been the "army of Muslims" that a certain MP called for. It would have been this people wasting police time and money.

If people want to listen to him really badly they can catch a flight to Amsterdam

He's a representative in the Dutch Parliament. He should NOT be banned from entering another EU country.

He was told he wasn't welcome and he came anyway because this pipsqueek is the worst king of self publicist and media harlot.

Yeah. and. so. what? Is being a self publicist and media harlot banned in the interests of public good now too?

Why do we have to allow him to come over to our country spewing his poisonous views?

because he's an MP from the EU. He should be allowed free access to any EU nation and should be allowed to say whatever he likes and screen any film he chooses. There are many poisonous views out there, banning them is not the solution. Debating is.

Fascists aren't interested in debate they are interested in publicity

So he's a Fascist now? In terms of publicity then banning him from speaking has had a much greater success than allowing him access would have had. He entered the UK last year, if i remember correctly, and nobody even noticed.

The man is a poisonous boil on humanity's botty he wasn't coming to have intelligent debate he was coming to incite racial hatred

Maybe that's true, but we'll never know now, will we!

 

[CoyoteUgly]

I don't think an MP of a fellow EU nation should have been banned from entering the UK just because some people don't like his opinions.

I would have much preferred for people to engage him and his followers in critical debate and show how these people are in error, rather than censoring him.

It is a debate that they would be sure to lose. When the truth is hurtful or makes one easy, political correctness browbeats everyone in the lie of silence.

Everybody knows that the fascistic Islamists are using the the Koran in exactly the ways that are pointed out in Fitna. That is not even debatable really.

Everybody knows.

That is what political correctness is all about. Everybody knows it is true, but nobody can say what is true upon penalty of ostracism, and now even criminal prosecution. What has happened to Hirsi Ali is now happening to Wilders.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

Fascists aren't interested in debate they are interested in publicity, his actions in coming to a country he knew he wouldn't be allowed into show that.

I totally agree that the fascists aren't interested in debate and that is why the fascists delight in Wilders arrest and delight in having the full force of the law shutting him down.

What the fascists delight in is the control that enforced political correctness affords them to go about with their inane agenda.

That is what being a fascist is all about.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

'Racist' is just a smear word used to browbeat people in to being too scared to voice legitimate opinions arising from race-based issues. It is tool used to demonise, vilify, and intimidate. It is also used to whip up hysteria in order to restrict the parameters of debate in regards to racial issues.

Therefore, the word 'racist' is part and parcel of the politically correct arsenal. They invent these words so they don't have to refute arguments. Others include 'sexist', 'homophobic', and 'nativist'. If I said I'd prefer 100 male soldiers to protect me in a war zone because men are stronger and faster than women, a leftist would know that this argument is true and cannot be countered. He would therefore label me a 'sexist' to compensate for his lack of a rational argument.

Political correctness is much more than manners as you imply. It's the taking down of Christmas decorations, removing piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims, and a book about Timmy and his wonderful two daddies. In short, it's the gangrene which is spreading through Western civilisation.

Political correctness makes democracy impossible. The ability to effectively choose a government depends on debate and the availability of all points of view in the marketplace of ideas. By not allowing some points of view across, because the the truth they convey might be hurtful, is not just inanely absurd and anti-liberty, but it is indeed gangrenous.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

Not politically correct?????

The limits of free speech have never been unbounded in any society at any time. And political correctness is just another word for being polite and using labels people don't object to when describing them.

Scratch most people who rail against political correctness and you'll find a racist. Political correctness can go too far so it becomes a sort of cultural cringe by overly sensitive white people and this can become institutionalised to ludicrous effect, but generally, as I said, it is simple manners.

Pfft.
When I scratch someone who calls me a racist, all I get is fingers smelling like bum.

 

[Allister]

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

~Noam Chomsky (legend)
[/FONT]

 

[MerchantofMenace]

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.

A third of them think that the Jews are responsible for the financial crisis as well.

I guess that's the Orwellian sense in which they deride Americans for being unenlightened.

 

[canukian]

i see alot of people saying all religions are the same when defending the koran...i call bs... i say these people need to go to the website called ...the religion of peace... you will see that this dutch guy knows what he is talking about.

 

[rambot]

'Racist' is just a smear word used to browbeat people in to being too scared to voice legitimate opinions arising from race-based issues. It is tool used to demonise, vilify, and intimidate. It is also used to whip up hysteria in order to restrict the parameters of debate in regards to racial issues.

That is incorrect.
Visit webster.com and search for the definition of the word "racist". You will see your understanding is self serving and incorrect. Realize society (and the dictionary) does not bend to your perception.

What I find most peculiar surrounding the word "racist" is that some actual racists refuse to acknowledge their own behaviour. It's as though they morally object to the term that represents the very thing they are doing:
"I'm not racist. I just think Arabs and Muslims are dirty, subhuman sociopaths bent on destroying the Western World".
Wake up and read a dictionary folks. If you're going to have an irrational fear, at least man up to your behaviour.

If I said I'd prefer 100 male soldiers to protect me in a war zone because men are stronger and faster than women, a leftist would know that this argument is true and cannot be countered. He would therefore label me a 'sexist' to compensate for his lack of a rational argument.

Strange then that the US Army would accept troups who are substandard.
Even more shocking that other MALE soldiers would put their trust in their double X chromosome comrades.
So male soldiers will trust female soldiers but you won't. That sounds more like your issue than a gender issue.

Regardless, when it comes to matters of life and death, I'm (personally) a bit more lenient on how people align themselves. I honestly wouldn't care.

 

[clarksided]

This seems like a fiery situation...but I always thought of the Dutch as the most easy-going Euros...perhaps not?

 

[clarksided]

<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.

Not all anti-abortion Christians approve of abortion clinic bombings...I think it's only appropriate that line be edited to narrow the definition of anti-abortionist.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

~Noam Chomsky (legend)
[/FONT]

Chomsky is not my favorite person as far as his politics go, although in linguistics he was brilliant.

He has been a very good friend of free speech though.

 

[CoyoteUgly]

i see a lot of people saying all religions are the same when defending the koran...i call bs... i say these people need to go to the website called ...the religion of peace... you will see that this dutch guy knows what he is talking about.

You are right It is bs. There are huge differences in values, and religion has a large say in which values that someone has.

Not all cultures are equal either. A glaring example would be the fascist culture of Nazi Germany. Nobody would get called a racist for calling this culture a inferior culture of less-that-human pscyhos intent on taking over the world.

You know what would be racist then? It would be racist not to call people who share much of this same fascist world-view with historic Nazi Germany similar names because their eyes are more brown than of blue.

To tailor our response based on eye color is what political correctness entails that we do, and yet this is racism by any defintion of the word!

A lot of people condemned GWB as a fascist for taking away American freedoms. So by their own definition, when they cheer on the British government for taking away the freedom of a man they despise, they too are fascists. Their own words against GWB condemn them. In their support of hate speech laws and Fairness doctrines and a whole host of such legislation, they have are fascist.

So just as these people are fascist, so does their political correctness make them racist. Implicit in their holding blue eyed people to a higher standard is the belief that the blue-eyes of the Judeo-Christian culture merit being held to a higher standard.

The hearts of the political correct have been exposed. Their own words and arguments expose them, and defile them as racists and fascists.

 

[John of Australia]

That is incorrect.
Visit webster.com and search for the definition of the word "racist". You will see your understanding is self serving and incorrect. Realize society (and the dictionary) does not bend to your perception.

This is the definition of 'racist' at Merriam-Webster:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So what we have with the first definition is a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. But we have to ask ourselves, why does the word bring such a demonising taint with it? Why are people reduced to pariahs for having a belief in a democracy?

I'm most definitely guilty of the second definition. I am a white man who plans on marrying a white woman and having white children. Therefore I am discriminating against women of other races. But how is that anybody's business but my own?

Here is the definition of 'prejudice' which makes up the first part of the second definition of 'racist':

2 a (1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

I left out the first definition of 'prejudice' because it has a legal meaning that doesn't pertain to what we're talking about here. If you don't believe me look for yourself.

About definition 2 a (1), all I can say is that people usually have negative perception of certain people after having dealt with them, not prior to it.

About definition 2 a (2), there is a lot of subjectivity there. Whose opinion defines what 'just grounds' are? Whose opinion defines what 'sufficient knowledge'.

Def. 2 b is an offshoot of 2 a so it contains the same faults.

Def. 2 c has the same problems as 2 a (2). What one person thinks is irrational, another person may think is perfectly rational

What I find most peculiar surrounding the word "racist" is that some actual racists refuse to acknowledge their own behaviour. It's as though they morally object to the term that represents the very thing they are doing

That's because the left has imbued the word with such a malignant aura and which is exactly why it is a smear word. Most white people are nearly as afraid of being called a racist as they are being called a pedophile.

If the was a book called 'Demonisation 101', the power of calling someone a racist would have a chapter of its own.

Strange then that the US Army would accept troups who are substandard.
Even more shocking that other MALE soldiers would put their trust in their double X chromosome comrades.
So male soldiers will trust female soldiers but you won't. That sounds more like your issue than a gender issue.

You should read chapter three of William McGowan's Coloring The News. I'm not going to look for the book to prove my point because I've already spent more time than I wanted on this post, but it would certainly open your eyes.

 

[Baggins]

'Racist' is just a smear word used to browbeat people in to being too scared to voice legitimate opinions arising from race-based issues. It is tool used to demonise, vilify, and intimidate. It is also used to whip up hysteria in order to restrict the parameters of debate in regards to racial issues.

Racist is also an accurate description of large numbers of people who hide behind vilifying supposed political correctness.
That is a simple fact, it is a code word it is away of attacking racial minorities under a different guise.

Therefore, the word 'racist' is part and parcel of the politically correct arsenal. They invent these words so they don't have to refute arguments. Others include 'sexist', 'homophobic', and 'nativist'. If I said I'd prefer 100 male soldiers to protect me in a war zone because men are stronger and faster than women, a leftist would know that this argument is true and cannot be countered. He would therefore label me a 'sexist' to compensate for his lack of a rational argument.

Supporting good manners doesn't mean forgoing common sense, that is a bizarre argument, because you don't like someone using a word like "golliwog" to describe a black person that you would demand female soldiers be given equal numbers in the front line.

You have just built the most colossal straw man congratulations

If you actually have an argument that you think I can't refute bring it on, don't make up a ludicrous straw man argument to defeat instead. Show me a left winger who'd call you sexist for demanding male soldiers do the fighting in a war zone.

The reasons that words like sexist, racist and homophobic exist is because people are those things and they often try to disguise those feelings by saying what they hate is political correctness when what they really hate is women, blacks and gays.

Political correctness is much more than manners as you imply. It's the taking down of Christmas decorations,

Not in my country it isn't, the "war on Christmas" has been shown to be a ludicrous lie in the UK. It probably is in the US as well. Overtly Christian decorations cannot be displayed on government property in the States due to the separation of church and state in your constitution. So you appear to have a problem with your constitution rather than political correctness there.

removing piggy banks so as not to offend Muslims,

I saw a case where a manager asked a worker to remove a cuddly toy pig in the UK - that was the sort of white cultural cringe I am talking about, only the most fundamentalist Muslim would be offended by a cuddly toy pig, the case caused much merriment in the UK and the manager in question was put right by local Muslims who found it offensive that they would be considered so thin skinned.

These stories are usually urban myths like the banning of black bin bags, they get trotted out by right wing rags like the Sun and the Mail regularly, but they are exposed as lies more often than not.

When they are not lies they are white people being ridiculously over sensitive to perceived minority sensitivity. That sort of white cultural cringe is pathetic in my view. The sort of Muslim who would be offended by a cuddly toy pig deserves to be offended on a regular basis because he/she is hysterical.

I can understand banks not giving out piggy banks to muslim children in the same way I could understand them not giving out golliwogs to black children, it is hardly good customer relations and is going to back fire in publicity.

and a book about Timmy and his wonderful two daddies.

What is wrong with a book which shows the reality of gay relationships?

In short, it's the gangrene which is spreading through Western civilisation.

In short it is an hysterical over reaction to something that is simple good manners 99% of the time and a stupid over-reaction by over sensitive whites 1% of the time.

Railing against political correctness is a simple code word to disguise racism, sexism and homophobia in most who rail against it.