2009 February 10 Tuesday
British Government Chooses Appeasement And Bars Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and creator of a movie critical of Islam called Fitna, has been banned from visiting Britain to appear at a viewing of his movie. The British government sees Wilders as a threat to community harmony.

Dear Mr Wilders

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently 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 your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

The British government sees Wilders as a threat to community harmony. Okay, suppose that is true. Why is that? Because the British government let into the country a group that is intolerant of criticism and which contains dangerous members who want to set up an Islamic state. The British government has decided to maintain harmony by appeasing these people. The British government has other choices here. It could deport people who are not willing to respect the right of others to criticise a hostile religion. Or it could vigorously enforce the law against Muslims in Britain who attempt to silence critics. But no, Britain has chosen appeasement.

Imagine that Wilders made a movie critical of Quakers. Would the British government fear Quaker reaction to the movie? Homie don't think so. If you have to keep someone out of your country because you have an ethnic group that gets violent about criticism this is nature's way of telling you to deport troublemakers until the trouble stops.

Derb says the British government puts placating Muslims ahead of a lot of other things.

Persons with incorrect opinions will not be admitted to the U.K., even if they are elected members of another nation's parliament. Nothing, nothing must be allowed if it gives offense to Muslims.

Melanie Phillips sees a double standard.

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

The Dutch government isn't any better. Wilders is going to be prosecuted for making remarks against Islam.

The Amsterdam court has ruled that the Public Prosecutor's Office should after all prosecute the populist politician Geert Wilders for anti-Islamic remarks. The Public Prosecutor decided halfway through last year, after six months investigation, not to prosecute on the grounds that Mr Wilders had not committed a punishable offence either in remarks he made to the Volkskrant newspaper or in his controversial film Fitna.

Wilders says Islam is violent and that Mohammad was an extremist.

"Islam is a violent religion. If Mohammad lived here today I could imagine chasing him out of the country tarred and feathered as an extremist," Wilders said in an interview with De Pers daily last year.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 February 10 11:30 PM  Civilizations Clash Of

Ned said at February 11, 2009 5:35 AM:

An earlier British Prime Minister took a different view on appeasing thugs and tyrants:

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that platitudes, smooth words, and timid policies offer a path to safety."

"How many wars have been averted by patience and good will?"

"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last."

"When nations are strong, they are not always just and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong."

"Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance."

"I cannot subscribe to the idea that it might be possible to dig ourselves in and make no preparations for anything else than passive defense. It is the theory of the turtle."

"I never worry about action, but only about inaction."

His name was Winston Churchill.

kurt9 said at February 11, 2009 10:06 AM:

So the Europeans are pussies. Tell us something we don't know.

Wolf-Dog said at February 11, 2009 10:58 PM:

But in one of these articles, it was also mentioned that ultimately, the United States may also start the same appeasement like UK. This is prognosis is possible because of the changing demographics of ethnicity and economic situation. If the US loses its already declining integrity, then the world will collapse into chaos, similar to the dark ages that happened after the fall of the Roman Empire. For the record, I am NOT a proponent of the Roman Empire because 45 % of the Roman population was made of slaves, and Romans did brutally exploit their colonies, but the final result of the collapse of Rome was chaos.

Wolf-Dog said at February 11, 2009 11:27 PM:

Another comment about the psychology of appeasement and intimidation: It is documented in history that it only three or four S.S. officers armed with pistols were able to shepherd several thousand prisoners into gas chambers. All these prisoners were walking into the gas chambers willingly, even though most of them had heard the stories that these big rooms were not showers. This was because all the prisoners want to believe that maybe they were not going to be killed, they all wanted to believe the false hopes they were given. And many of them also wanted to postpone their own death just by a few minutes, by not starting a rebellion.

Toadal said at February 12, 2009 10:47 PM:

This outcome is simply further evidence of an 250 year ongoing process.

Those possessing "get up and go" have got up and left, the British Isles.

Roger Mudd said at February 12, 2009 11:19 PM:

David Miliband was on BBC's Hardtalk and was asked about this matter.

His response was how Fitna was "hate filled" and therefore very provocative.
He was asked if he saw the film and he said "no".

Miliband is talking rubbish - the hate in the movie was completely from
Islamic sources - all Geert did was take excerpts from the Koran and
clippings from the statements of Islamic clerics, politicians, etc..

What a shame!! How spineless. Big victory for Islamic Terror.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2009 6:46 PM:
But no, Britain has chosen appeasement

...again. How well did it work out for them last time?

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©