We
welcome
those
who
preach
terror
and
death.
So why
ban an
idiotic
Dutch MP
with
noxious
yet
non-violent
views?
by
Stephen
Glover
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate
Refused
free
speech:
Geert
Wilders
Should
we care
that an
apparently
kooky
Far-Right
Dutch MP
of whom
we have
never
heard
has been
banned
from
entering
this
country?
Much as
we abhor
his
beliefs,
I
believe
we
should.
Geert
Wilders
had been
invited
to show
his
shocking
17-minute
film
called
Fitna at
a small
gathering
today at
the
House of
Lords,
but has
now been
prevented
from
doing so
by the
Home
Secretary,
Jacqui
Smith.
It can,
however,
be
easily
viewed
on
YouTube
— and
has
already
been by
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people.
His film
links
mainstream
Islamic
texts
with the
terrorist
attacks
on New
York in
September
2001. It
begins
with the
hugely
controversial
cartoon
of the
Prophet
Mohammed
with a
bomb as
a
turban.
I must
say that
the film
seems to
me a
crude —
and
pretty
boring —
piece of
propaganda.
Its
purpose
is to
demonise
the
Muslim
faith by
implying
that it
is
essentially
violent.
The
suggestion
that the
Koran is
‘a
fascist
book’ is
bound to
be
offensive
to
millions
of
law-abiding
and
peaceful
Muslims.
For all
that,
Fitna
does not
incite
violence,
and I
doubt it
offends
against
any
British
laws.
Why,
then,
should
Mr
Wilders
have
been
banned
from
coming
here?
The Home
Office
was
evidently
concerned
that the
film
might be
deemed
provocative
by
British
Muslims.
Lord
Ahmed, a
supposedly
moderate
Labour
peer,
had been
reported
as
saying
that he
would
mobilise
10,000
of his
coreligionists
if Mr
Wilders
were
allowed
to come
here,
though
he
strongly
denies
he ever
said
this.
The same
Lord
Ahmed
invited
an Al
Qaeda
terror
suspect
to visit
Westminster
three
years
ago.
The last
thing
the Home
Office
wanted
was a
confrontation
between
Mr
Wilders
and
members
of the
British
Muslim
community.
So an
age-old
and
cherished
principle
— that
of free
speech —
has been
torn up
and
thrown
away.
No
sensible
person
would
suggest
that a
person
be
allowed
to say
whatever
he wants
in
public.
The
criminal
law
recognises
that
there
should
be
limits
to free
speech —
for
example,
by
legislating
against
those
inciting
violence.
But
there is
no
evidence
that Mr
Wilders’
film
falls
foul of
such
laws,
and the
Home
Office
has not
suggested
that it
does.
I’m
afraid
the
Government
is
guilty
of the
most
appalling
double
standards.
Whatever
we may
think of
Mr
Wilders,
he is an
elected
representative
and the
leader
of a
perfectly
legal
political
organisation
called
the
Party
For
Freedom,
which
holds
nine out
of 120
seats in
the
Dutch
Parliament.
So far
as I am
aware,
he has
never
broken
the law
or
threatened
anyone
with
violence,
though
he faces
a trial
in the
Netherlands
for
making
anti-Islamic
statements.
The
Dutch
government,
though
not at
all
friendly
towards
Mr
Wilders,
is right
to have
protested
so
strongly
to the
British
Government
at the
exclusion
of one
of its
own
parliamentarians
from
another
European
Union
nation.
Yet our
Government
has
indulged
and
protected
a number
of
extreme
imams
who have
gone far
further
than Mr
Wilders
in
preaching
hate.
Incompetent:
Jacqui
Smith
For
example,
the
radical
cleric
Abu
Hamza
was
allowed
to rail
against
homosexuals
and
women in
bikinis
for
years
before
he was
finally
sentenced
for
soliciting
murder.
As Mayor
of
London,
Ken
Livingstone
embraced
a Muslim
cleric
called
Yusuf
al-Qaradawi
when he
visited
City
Hall in
2005
with the
full
permission
of HM
Government.
Al-Qaradawi
had been
criticised
for
condoning
suicide
bombings
and for
having
anti-Semitic
and
homophobic
views.
Last
November,
the same
Jacqui
Smith,
who now
raises
the
drawbridge
against
Mr
Wilders,
granted
a
radical
propagandist
called
Ibrahim
Moussawi
a
six-month
visa so
that he
could
speak at
a
conference
in
London
on
Islam.
Moussawi
once
allegedly
described
Jews as
‘a
lesion
on the
forehead
of
history’.
There
are
endless
examples
of the
Government
turning
a blind
eye to
extreme
Islamists
so that
they are
allowed
to say
whatever
they
want in
this
country.
Nor is
it above
accepting
people
who have
been
sentenced
for
serious
non-religious
offences,
including
a
61-year-old
convicted
paedophile
who had
lived in
Australia
for 56
years.
Many
people
would
judge
him a
much
greater
threat
than Mr
Wilders.
The gay
activist
and
former
Labour
MP Peter
Tatchell
yesterday
pointed
out that
Jacqui
Smith
has
regularly
given
visas
and work
permits
to
Jamaican
reggae
singers
who
openly
incite
the
murder
of
lesbian
and gay
people.
Tatchell
mentioned
the
granting
of a
visa
last
year to
a
Jamaican
singer
called
Bounty
Killer.
T
Though
he was
allowed
into
this
country,
he had
been
banned
from
Guyana
earlier
in 2008
on
account
of his
murderous
lyrics.
All
kinds of
undesirable
people,
some
potentially
dangerous,
are
welcomed
to our
shores,
while a
Dutch MP
who is
admittedly
highly
controversial
but does
not
preach
violence
is told
that he
can’t
come
here.
Mr
Wilders,
who
clearly
relishes
the
publicity,
is
likely
to make
an
attempt
today to
defy the
Home
Secretary’s
ban but
will
almost
certainly
be
thwarted.
Jacqui
Smith —
the most
incompetent
and
accident-prone
of
ministers
— has
been
cowed by
a number
of
Muslim
leaders
such as
Lord
Ahmed
who
don’t
want Mr
Wilders
here.
Welcome:
Muslim
hate
cleric
Dr
Yusuf
al-Qaradawi
with
Ken
Livingstone
In fact,
she is
not
doing
decent
Muslims
any
favour
at all.
The
tragedy
is that
Ms
Smith’s
decision
will
reinforce
the view
that
Islam is
an
intolerant
religion
which
will not
allow
its
opponents
to take
part in
public
debate.
A more
sensible
note was
struck
yesterday
by the
Quilliam
foundation,
which
exists
to
promote
moderate
Islam.
It
believes
that
however
obnoxious
and
offensive
the
opinions
of the
Dutch MP
may be,
it is
better
to
engage
directly
with him
and
answer
his
points
rather
than
trying
to shut
him up.
This is
in
keeping
with
this
country’s
tolerant
traditions
towards
free
speech
which
Jacqui
Smith
does not
respect.
She does
not want
open
debate.
She does
not
value
freedom.
Again
and
again
since
9/11,
this
Government
has
responded
by
clamping
down on
ancient
liberties
and
restricting
freedoms
which we
once
took for
granted.
The ban
on Mr
Wilders
is one
more
turn of
the
screw.
What has
become
of our
once
tolerant
country?
Earlier
this
week,
the
Church
of
England’s
General
Synod
voted in
favour
of
banning
priests
from
belonging
to the
British
National
Party
which,
however
disgusting
its
views,
is a
legal
organisation.
Surely
our
established
Church
should
be
discouraging
its
priests
from
preaching
anti-Christian
or
racist
sermons
— though
I very
much
doubt
that any
of them
do so —
rather
than
setting
out
which
organisations
they
may, or
may not,
belong
to.
In the
banning
of Mr
Wilders
there is
a
collision
of two
traditions
— you
could
say a
clash of
cultures.
One,
which is
partly
associated
with the
more
extreme
forms of
Islam,
opposes
open
debate
and
seeks to
ban its
opponents,
or
otherwise,
to shut
them up.
The
other,
which is
in the
spirit
of
Western
Enlightenment,
accepts
differences.
Voltaire
famously
said
that he
might
not
agree
with his
opponent’s
beliefs,
but he
would
fight to
the
death
for his
right to
express
them.
Needless
to say,
that
cowardly
chump
Jacqui
Smith
does not
understand
any of
this.
She
bends
her knee
to the
intolerant
fanatics
who will
not take
on the
idiotic
Geert
Wilders,
and in
so doing
she is
guilty
of
further
corrupting
our
precious
values.
Share
this
article
*
FEBRUARY-2009