Geert Wilders

As far I know, Wilders movie and activity is based on two ideas, that Islam is opressive for the Muslims themselves and that the Muslims in Europe will replace our way of life with something we don't like because is not our cultural identity.


Initially Wilders obtained permission to come to Britain to speak and screen Fitna at the House of the Lords but Lord Ahmed, a representative of Muslims in Britain threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims in demonstration so the permission was canceled:

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/lord-ahmed-threatens-to-mobilise-10000-so-wilders-visit-off/

Originally posted by edgewaters Does Fitna explicitly incite violence?

Sorry Northman, I disagree. This is an application of already in place British policy.

Britain (and also Australian and America) refuse to grant visas to people who they consider will damage the harmony of the country. They ban extremist muslims, extremist anti-muslims, extremist holocaust deniers, who ever is assessed by the immigration officials to be harmful for the country.

This is an example (and not the only one) of the British immigration officials applying the law impartially. Now, you may consider that the law is wrong, personally I agree with not granting visas to every malcontent, however given that the law exists they have enacted it properly.

This is not a restriction of freedom of speech, because they are not restricting their own citizens, they are refusing entry to a foreigner who will stir up political trouble. Australia has recently refused the leader of the BNP entry (and has done so under the previous govt as well), as he is an Englishman the British cannot do anything against him, but if he were Dutch I am sure the British would refuse him entry as well.

To reject Wilders entrance because of this, is just another case of proving that the radical Islamic policy is working - yet another example of caving into fear.

They reject extremist muslims entry all the time, the law must be applied fairly and impartially. Letting him in is caving into fear and xenophobia - its saying one persons racism is acceptable and another is unacceptable. The British have not done this, and therefore have acted impartially in the execution of their law.

If you think he should have been permitted then you should be debating the morality of British immigration law. ie, refusing entry to unwanted activists.

Northman The basic message in Fitna is suggesting to tear up or ban the Quran since the Quran is inciting to violence - or rather, since the radical elements of Islam are using the scriptures to incite followers to violence. The film is very strong in its expression - maybe too emotional for my taste. However - it's just a point of view and a suggestion.   To reject Wilders entrance because of this, is just another case of proving that the radical Islamic policy is working - yet another example of caving into fear.

So you find nothing wrong with a pollitician who wants t ban the Qur'an?

What next, we'll be gathering round in city centres burning all Jewish oh I mean Muslim books in fires, putting stars oh no I mean crescent badges on muslims...you can see where this is going.

Brittish government is not allowing Neo-Nazi wackos to spread their nonsense and pollute impressionable minds with their rhetoric.

Originally posted by Al Jassas First of all let us make certain things clear. This story has nothing to do with free speech although some people want to put it that way for political reasons.   The guy is a Dutch citizen, so regardless of whatever people want to portray the incident, the law is the law. He doesn't enjoy the civil liberties a British citizen have plus he is a visitor not a resident. The British government didn't prevent the screening of the film and incide the parliament itself among all places. It didn't arrest people or procecute them.   Second of all, I agree in principle with Parnell. While free speech becomes slander when it injures another person or group,ie slander or agitation, I think that there should be no limits on free speech in any other cases.   Mr. Geert is slandering muslims, agitating the masses against them and thus your principle Parnell applies to him.   Al-Jassas

I agree.

Also

for God's sake Snoop Dogg was banned from the UK a few years ago, too. It happens all the time. I guess he should have filed charges of "racism," but he didn't.

Originally posted by Panther I think it is ridiculous. What's the point of allowing one set of views to be expressed and not another. So... what it boils down to is... free speech for thee, but not for me. Regardless of the facts behind this, i'm sure the BNP has picked up more than a few votes with this continuely growing clusterf**k of more state intervention. Either all views are expressed for public dissemination or none are except for what  the state dictates or will allow!

I don't think you read the preceding posts or the news piece. They did allow his view to be shared. The UK allowed his movie Fitna to be shown in Parliament, but the UK as a country did not allow him to enter, in which they are justified of course. Furthermore, check the news piece Al Jassas brought into the conversation, too, which clearly shows a lot more people who were denied entry. Again to sum it up no one in the UK goverment actually banned his views, because Fitna was able to be shown in the UK, but they did not let him enter the country, because of reasonas they stated. What is so wrong in that? As Sparten put it, they both were allowed to excercise their freedom of speech, Wilders was allowed his freedom of speech by the UK government allowing his movie to be shown, and the UK government, too, by not allowing him the person to enter the country.

Originally posted by Northman Omar - you are missing my point.   The point is the answer to Edgewaters question. Wilders is not inciting to, or advocating for violence - through his film, he is warning us of others who do just that - how they do it, and by what means.   I don't know him - he could be a racist for all I care - like many others with him. Whether one racist or another should should be denied entry is not the point I want to make. But someone inciting to violence should be banned - warning people shouldn't.

I love the dual nature of your argument. Nothing else to say.

Northman I see your point, personally I think guys like him, Christian, Muslim, Athiest or whatever make their money and get their power causing hatred and tensions, they'd love for their to be groups of people from various ideological viewpoints slaughtering each other its what they feed off.

I support freedom of speech but some people just want to abuse it until people won't tolerate it anymore.

Well it seems that you're doing over-time trying to find a way to justify this as "freedom of speech." What must he do? Lead a march and start a public burning before he is a hate monger?

Originally posted by Bulldog I support freedom of speech but some people just want to abuse it until people won't tolerate it anymore.