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.
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.
"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|