Geert Wilders
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26565
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 16:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Geert Wilders
Posted By: Parnell
Subject: Geert Wilders
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 19:08
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/12/far-right-dutch-mp-ban-islam I think its counter-productive to refuse Wilders access to the UK. Firstly, I must feel very cynical about the British Home Office refusing anyone entry to the UK, considering its repressively anti-libertarian legislative agenda. I'm not one to claim that free speech is an absolute or anything but come on - turning this guy away doesn't do away with the ideas he has behind him, which unfortunatley have a bit of traction in some sections of British society (BNP voters, though in fairness they are in a very small minority) Considering Britains recent troubles with xenophobic unions the government have a fair argument in refusing him access but my inner hippy see's this in a prism of freedom of speech versus the creeping statism we've been seeing in the British government since the threat of terrorism rose its head. |
Replies:
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 19:28
I agree with you Parnell and yes free speech can offend some people and while our First Amendment is still in place we have that right in the USA. I am not going to argue the validity of his movie Fitna or his message but that in a free society he has the right to criticize other groups whether they be; Christians, Commies, Liberals, neo cons, Captain Kangaroo or "yes" Muslims. It only shows to me that Great Britain no longer believes in the freedom to criticize because it might be hate speech. Gert Wilders is always welcome in the USA and if Holland succeeds in prosecuting him I hope the USA grants him asylum and tells Holland too bad!! I know some in office want to pass hate speech laws here as well which I oppose or the government telling us what is hate speech that is. It would be an insult to our founding fathers, our great constitution and yes all who have died fighting for our freedoms. Now, when British judges come after US publishers that is a different story but that is an old story and for another thread. I really condemn Britain for turning him away but what can we do? ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:05
|
Their country, their rules.
Plus many more people were denied entry to Britain who did nothing near what he did on the basis of them being anti-semite (which under new definitions means just criticising Israel). Good for the Brits I say seeing them generalising the rule.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:21
Do you have any links for their story Al Jassas? I am not sure what their message was but when any message which incites violence and the overthrow of a culture or nation then it is sedition and not free speech but where do you draw the line? They have the right to criticize but not threaten. I am not saying this was what they promoted, I don't know. I know some of the things the NAZI party says in the USA is not free speech when they talk about killing or hurting other groups or those who do not agree with them. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:23
|
This incident poses an interesting question. Some say refusing Geert Wilders entry to Britain because of his opinions is a violation of free speech, while the British government argues it's for the sake of preserving social harmony. Now it is obvious that the ones who would have upset social harmony would be mostly Muslim, which begs the question; should we allow religious minorities to have an influence on when free speech applies, or should the government defend free speech uncompromisingly? I know where I stand. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:33
|
Based on your argument Mr. Geert deserves to be kicked out of Britain.
The guy promotes a message of hate towards muslims that only a blind guy or a guy who actually supports his ideas doesn't see. This threatens the British way of life and social harmony and thus he is a threat to the country (muslims are about 3% of Britains population and up to 15% in big urban centers).
The guys that the Brits refused visas are people whom you don't know nor did they make a big story (mostly imam's, religious scholar and political activists). Here is a link to some links of people Britain previously banned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7886237.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7886237.stm
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:39
|
Hello Regi
One yes or no question and with no left or right. Since you support the guy under free speach and free speach is so sacred.
Do you support the right of the British bishop denying the Holocaust?
Do you condemn the witch hunt he is currently facing?
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:45
Let's be careful not to derail the thread here, but to answer you; yes, to both questions. Historical revisionists are tedious, but hardly criminal. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:51
|
I do not agree but I respect your view and will ponder it more as free speech. I have watched fitna and obsession and they made me love the Muslim who are victims of the extremist. Whether I support his ideas is irrelevant but his freedom to speak is, especially here. I will read over the link Al Jassas because I, even though I don’t know you, sense you are honorable.
I do not know British law which governs speech but in the USA he is protected by our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If someone wants to criticize Christians then by all means go ahead or the commies. First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Hate speech laws, like in England, would ban the criticism of certain groups like homosexuality, Islam or whoever, no matter how true it is. If you read the first Amendment passing such a law would also violate one of our fundamental tenets. It would anger me and would makes me wonder, "what would our founding father do?". ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 20:55
|
Then I salute you and have no problem with your stance although I do have an objection on how you portrayed the incident.
What I have a problem with is those people who think that they can make exception to a rule they profess and think they can get away with it.
You are either with free speach or you are against it. There is no limits.
It was from this point muslims and their supporters came in the cartoon incident and this incident. Britain has laws and these laws were applied. They denied a foreigner access and its their country but they still allowed the film to be screened in the parliament. There is nothing wrong here because they proved that all are under the same rules.
However in the rest of europe things are totally different. Jews, and sorry for not being PC, have special treatment. They can't be criticised, they can't be insulted in the same way the Dutch film insulted muslims and the holocaust is the sacred cow. If you dare say 5 999 999 jews died in the Nazi holocaust but not 6 million, you just signed the distruction of everything dear to you from your career to even your freedom (Germany, Austria and France jail those who question the official holocaust story even if they swear by everything that is holy that they believe the holocaust is true).
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:13
|
Freedom of speech is a principle. Speech in reality is heavily regulated, for the general cohesiveness of society. I could not, for example, declare that Al Jassas in a murdering raping tyrant. Were we to live in the same jurisdiction, I would rightfully face slander charges (Or possibly worse) Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. People forget that.
------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:17
Indeed, everyone should have a problem with hypocrisy. I portrayed the incident the way I did because I do not want to see a tendency where a potentially violent mob can threaten a democratically elected party into a particular course of action. That is a step towards anarchy. Britain in this case handles the problem backwards; social harmony is achieved not when the government fears the people, but when the people fear the government.
I couldn't agree more with you. Either there is free speech or there isn't, and in the case of the countries you mentioned there isn't. A German I know even told me you can get in trouble for owning Nazi souvenirs, even if it's just out of historical interest. Now, I would never deny the Holocaust and I don't see why the exact estimate of dead Jews even matters, but truth is the entire genocide has gotten a disproportionally large amount of attention at the expense of numerous other ethnic, religious and political groups who suffered as much if not more during WW2. I especially feel for the peoples who lived along the eastern front and suffered both at the hands of the Nazis and Sovjet, the Ukrainians, Poles and Baltics come to mind, as well as for the German civilians who were subjected to a brutal ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe. Few however speak out for these people, few realise just how overshadowed their suffering has been by the Holocaust, but many would protest against presenting their suffering as equal to that of the Jews. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:27
Yes I agree the world is full of hypocrisy and although I believe there was a holocaust if someone wants to preach there was not then that is their right or at least here. I know some NAZI groups in America who were preaching that but they were protected by the First Amendment. I have encountered Communist groups at my old college and while I do not agree with their message they were protected; as long as they do not preach overthrowing our government and constitution. I was surprised to see Martha Steward on that list!! Poor Martha- LOL ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:33
|
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
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:35
| Does Fitna explicitly incite violence? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:36
|
Regi, democracy by its nature means that " a potentially violent mob can threaten a democratically elected party into a particular course of action". Democracy ain't pretty. If the majority would have their way, lots of nasty and unpleasent things would happen.
Wilders has a right to free speech and so dose the UK Home office. It is the right of Wilders to say what he wants, and the right of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to decide who enters their country.
Never thought I would be defending Wilders and the UK Home office in one paragraph. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:44
In a working democracy the potentially violent mob, or the people to use a nicer word, elects their government through voting, then the government must be allowed to sit its term and carry out its policies. If the people are displeased they have to wait until the next election and vote for someone else. To overrule this practice with violence is an act of totalitarianism. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 21:47
Good point and one of the rare time we agree Sparten-  ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 23:20
|
Not all of us agree on his right to speak on this topic and one such article is here:
I do not agree with him that the Koran should be banned but that is his opinion and sadly it is assuming that all Muslims would take it to such an extreme; some do and some do not. It varies just like Christianity or any religion. I still condemn Britian for its lack of courage. His view: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141622/Dutch-MP-arrives-Heathrow-booted-Britain-anti-Islam-film.html - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141622/Dutch-MP-arrives-Heathrow-booted-Britain-anti-Islam-film.html BILLIONAIRE CULT LEADER Reverend Sun Myung Moon, 89 I did not know he was banned from the UK but I can see why. The moonies!! I wish they would ban his entry into the USA- LOL kidding!!  ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 23:27
|
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!
------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 23:38
|
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/ - http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/lord-ahmed-threatens-to-mobilise-10000-so-wilders-visit-off/ -------------  |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 00:09
|
This is what I real hypocritical. When there is talk of some radical muslim guy comming to Britain, the media gets into a frenzy and says he should be put in prison for his views of hate, or that if your caught with any literature written by the likes of Al-Q you'll be put in prison. But when its the other way round, when it comes to bashing muslims well that's freedom of speech. Its good the Brittish Government isn't allowing this Neo-Nazi with a twist, instead of being an extremist anti-semitic he' san extremist anti-muslim, into the country to stir up tensions and just create problems when there is so much effort to create more inter-faith harmony. This is like somebody using the Israeli agression in Palestine, then finding and distorting some passages from the Torah and then claiming, Jews do this because its their nature, their religion teaches them to kill poor muslim kids and drink christian childrens blood. If the media is so upset they can organise a gathering with KKK, Al-Q, Neo-Nazi''s and every other wacko extremist leader they can find on an uninhabited island and stay there for good. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 00:22
No - and thats the point.
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.
We sell out of the most important western values in trade for peace - blackmail.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 00:43
|
Bugger Western or Eastern or muslim or French or Northern or Martian values! It is the UK's right to decide who enters their country. Making decisions at high levels of power often involves balancing competing considerations, often using informations that us lesser mortals don't have access to. Its a bit like when people want Saudi Arabia off the UN Rights Council ; becaise well I mean come on; its Saudi Arabia! Not realising that the Saudis pay for many of the initiatives that the council makes. If it had been me, I would have let Wilders in, never a fan of restricting speech and expression, but I can say this, I don't envy the home office.------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 00:54
|
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.
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:15
Wait a minute? Did you just in your own words state that hate speech and freedom of speech are one and the same thing? Criticizing something or someone is all fine and dandy and we do that here on a daily basis in the U.S., but hate speech should never be allowed to be compared to freedom of speech. There is a difference between stating something in order to criticize and stating something you know is hateful and in hope of causing a hateful reaction against the subject of your "hate" speech. Now yes we can go all crazy on hate speech, too, like cases where two individuals of two ethnic or "racial" groups for the lack of a better term are involved in an altercation and the winner may be persecuted for "hate" due to the both not having the same skin color or something else. Now that is obviously pushing it in some cases, but of course there are still a lot of cases where people that are "other" get that type of rough and unjustified hateful treatment all over. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:19
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. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:24
|
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.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:26
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:38
He is calling for a minority to be persecuted so far that their Holy book should be outlawed, this can be argued as inciting violence as there may be groups encouraged by his hate speech to do harm to innocent muslims and burn their Holy books. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:41
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:42
No - that is a perfectly fine opinion.
On the same note and for the same reason, I would find it fine if someone advocated to ban the Bible as well. It is used for exactly the same thing.
Not saying here that I would ban either book.
It's the principle - we do not need to share opinions - everyone is entitled to his.
The point is - we are all entitled to opinions, but no one should be entitled to incite to violence or incite to harm others - let alone doing so. Thats the difference.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:45
I love the dual nature of your argument. Nothing else to say. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:47
Well double standards. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:48
|
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. ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:53
Well - I'm used to explain things more ways - must be an occupational determined defect.  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 01:55
|
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? ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:09
Let me return the question:
What has he done that he should be punished in any way? - did he harm anyone? - did he ask others to go to holy war? - did he say he would kill someone?
No - he made a film expressing his concerns and fear.
Some people could find that movie hurtful or insulting - but that is not his problem.
Many people are more or less hate mongers, expressing their aversions.
We may not like it, but if they keep it at that, and not advocating to harm anyone - it's their right.
Can we convict or punish anyone for what he possibly might do?
------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:19
Indeed, but I see Freedom of Speech as the foundation of all other freedoms - and we should not barter that for anything - then other freedoms will start crumbling as well.
We all must learn to accept/acknowledge opinions different from our own - and live with that recognition.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:23
Who punished him or hurt him in return? His film was viewed in Parliament and the UK was it not? He the person could not gain entry, and as Al-Jassas pointed out plenty of people are not allowed entry. This is a UK government issue not a freedom of speech issue. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:36
He has advocated hatred and harm towards muslims. 'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam' - Geer Wilders Wilders believes that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted and all settled immigrants should be paid to leave. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam "If Muslims want to stay in the Netherlands, they should tear out half the Koran and throw it away." http://web.archive.org/web/20070514083622/http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=36456 The guy is basically calling for the ethnic cleansing of muslims from his country. And do you know what is really hypocritical about all this? The guy wants the Qur'an banned, he wants certain books about muslims banned, he wants so many things BANNED but he talks about Freedom of Speech. This isn't about freedom of speech, its about racist Nazi minded biggots using freedom of speech to try and achieve their goal of tyranical regime. You know what this guy wants if he ever gets to power? that only 1 Tv channel be allowed in Holland and this is the guy standing up for freedom of speech  ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:37
His natural right to travel freely into UK was taken away from him - that is a punishment.
Yes, this is indeed an issue to ponder for the brits and their government in particular. They cater the Muslim extremists by denying him in for expressing his views - what will come next - mind control?
But it's also a Freedom of Speech issue - entering the slippery slope of limiting human rights and freedoms.
------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 02:48
|
Bulldog - I read you loud and clear.
I am not defending him - he does not represent my views.
I am defending his right to freedom of speech without being punished.
He might be all the things you say - but so far not enough to be convicted for anything.
 See you all tomorrow.... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 03:55
There is no such thing as a natural right to travel freely into one country where the government of that country representative of the people says that you cannot enter. Plenty of people experience that from all sides of the spectrum. His film is in the UK, it was viewed in many mediums, from political to the popular. Nothing wrong here at all. Every country has a right to decline visitor rights to a person that they deem may bring more negative than positive. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 03:55
Hey, congrats on the 4000 mark North.
Certain non-violent action causes violent action. I am not familar with Geert Wilders except by rumour, so I cannot comment on what he has done. The British government has obviously decided that he is inciting violence or hatred in a sufficent degree to be a threat to British national security. I can see no reason why I should doubt their judgement.
He doesn't have that right, unless he is a citizen or has ancestory from the UK. The UK has the right to refuse entry to non-citizens, who aren't refugees.
Would they cater to anti-muslim extremists by violating their own laws? ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 04:43
Sorry. I was thinking of an article from a different news thread about this very subject when i wrote that. The point is, every country in the west has groups spreading hate or chanting death and destruction toward the host country, regardless of whatever their affiliations are or their place of birth. And they are worried about the possibly repugnant views of this one man, a European bureaucrat whom many in the world, most especially in the west have never even heard of until now, including me! It doesn't matter what his views are anymore, because he along with a slowly growing list of others here in the west are sure to be turned into tomorrow's posterboy of political correctness run amok by many on the extreme far right. They're stupidly making him into a free speech martyr along with thousands of others. I'm sorry, but i don't think this has anything to do with social harmony, but more to do with a state being terrorized from within, which in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing if given a good reason. However, this doesn't seem to be a good enough reason to me at this time. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 09:25
Quite, but the crime lies entirely with those who first resort to violence and it's a simple matter of prosecuting them like other criminals. The irony here is that Wilders is denied entry to Britain for fear of the very tendencies he warns against. I suppose he must find some confirmation in this.
The peer is within his right to protest and there is nothing unlawful about a demonstration, yet it is indicative of the challenges we face. I wonder if the British government truly fears such a demonstration, or if they rather fear what such a demonstration could develop into. To put another it another way; did they respond to what they expected would be a reaction within the bounds of free speech, or did they respond to the threat of a violent riot? ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 09:41
I agree ... I think inciting violence is the test in applying free speech. Wilders should be allowed to demand that we ban the Quran, just as Wilders' opponents should be allowed to demand that we ban his film, but we shouldn't give in to either one of them. We should only come down on those who explicitly call for violence as a solution. It is the only thing that matters because without violence, neither of them have any practical means of imposing their anti-free speech agenda on any unwilling subject. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 09:45
Indeed, this is the only feasible solution if freedom of speech is to be anything more than a tool for extremists. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 10:54
No, it doesn't. Depending on the situation of course, the crime quite often lies equally with the one who provoked the violence.
No, Wilders is denied because he is a shamless racist, and he promotes hate, fear, and xenophobia.
Indeed. Extremists like Wilders are hiding behind free-speech to spread their message of hate, what must be done is not to silence them or the equal & opposites, but to denouce them loudly and by all communities. Every community has its extremists, there is only a problem when the moderate majority side with the extremists in their community rather than siding with the siding with majority moderates in other communities. ------------- |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 11:28
|
What sems strange is that this man is a member of the EU who is meant to be able to travel freely within it
I note that the UK allow to remain people who are NOT members of the EU nor citizens of the UK and who promote views of violence against the UK
|
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 12:37
It can if the violent response is harmless enough, but no insult is equal to murder.
This is your take on him, many British voters may disagree or even claim it is warranted.
Those who disagree with Wilders will denounce him, those who do not will either be supportive or ignore him. None of us can expect all communities to to work with our own agenda, nor can we speak for them. ------------- |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 14:12
Of course he has a right to travel freely as others also points out, and of course it's wrong to deny him access.
What crimes is he convicted of? - what laws did he violate in the UK or in Holland? - none.
Yet he is treated as a criminal.... and why?
Yes - the UK has a law they can use to keep violent elements out - and they have every right to use that law. But I bet they didn't have a dutchman in mind, when they made the law.
Ironically, now the same law is used to keep a "free speech" person out - to avoid trouble from the same radical elements that the law was created to keep out.
Let me ask you - why do YOU think they want to keep him off?
It's as simple as that - and I think the latter is why they keep him out.
Like I said in my first post - they are caving in to the already instilled fear from the exstremists, on the expense of freedom.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 17:27
|
Who cares if they had or not had a dutchman in mind when they made it? Point is they have it and are using it within their own right and conscious thinking... whether or not that will be negative or positive is a different matter, but fact remains that they have that right as a independent state, and he does not have a natural right in the real world, but rather in a more harmonious non-governmental world, which sadly does not exist nor will ever. Thus a government has a right, if the majoirity of citizens of representatives in Parliament decide to get rid of it then of course that is different.
------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:06
|
This is just another example of what is becoming the most police minded country in Europe. CCTV cameras watching everybody from every angle, without their knowledge, attempts to put everybody on a massive DNA database in the presumption of guilt, which disgusts me, a "Section 5" public disorder ac that gives the police the legal right to arrest ANYBODY for anything they can think of, and a massively over-budget ID card scheme that is completely against people's rights to privacy. It didn't surprise me at all when I heard this. Wilders is a democratically elected politician, he should be allowed to enter a fellow country of the EU. His views are not the issue, his right to express it is. I don't agree with what he has to say, but what right does the government have to decide what is potentially dangerous for their citizens to hear or be exposed to. It is their right to listen to him, to denounce him, to ignore him. It is not the government's right (or responsibility) to decide their course of action for them. This sort of trend really worries me, and is the reason I would not like to live in the UK. Ireland is getting as bad, but not quite yet. And at the end of it all, Wilders is getting a lot more publicity for his video than he would ever have got without this debacle, so even the motivations of immigration are wholly questionable. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:40
|
Just to be clear, as a an EU citizen you do NOT have the right to travel freely per se, your country and others have an agreement that citizens can cross borders after showing a valid and acceptable proof of identity, it is not a right, it is a reciprocal agreement between members of the EU by virtue of various treaties countries can and routinely do prevent movement.
Note Article 39 of the (amended EC Treaty)
------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:44
|
I agree with Dolphin but it is important to remember that many Islamic radicals have been turned away (Some from EU countries) on the pretense of preaching hate and threatening dissension. There wasn't nearly as great an outrage over that. A nation state has a right to refuse access to people who potentially preach dissent and hatred, which few would deny Wilders is guilty of. yes, free speech, yes, right to debate and to argue with these philistines, but I don't think it can be viewed as simply as over-bearing statism. (Which Britain has become in the Labour years) That said I do believe Wilders should have been allowed into the UK, if for no other reason that he be embarressed by eloquent and sophisticated speakers that British universities have in abundance. The mans simplicity is astounding. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:48
I agree and the only violence I see is when a certain group is angered by what he says. When the Crucifix was put into a jar of urine and called art it made some Christian angry, especially Catholics, but where were the riots and killings? I am glad the vast majority of Muslims are sensible and would not go to this extreme. When he says he does not like Islam he only means the extreme end of this religion that is behind the violence. When he says he like Muslims I think he acknowledges the Muslims who are peaceful. Immigration. I agree Britain has the right to turn him away like Holland and the USA have the same right to regulate immigration- another issue. Let not turn ADD and keep on his right to enter Britain and even though the UK has that right I still have the right to condemn them for it. I agree a few yahoo uneducated red necks might take his message to a hateful extreme but I have never learned to hate from him or others. I put this link up so you can judge this debate for yourself. Debate in House of Lords on the UK government's justification for barring Wilders from the country http://news.parliament.uk/2009/02/geert-wilders/ - http://news.parliament.uk/2009/02/geert-wilders/ Free speech is being threatened in the USA as well, even with our First Amendment. David Horowitz- freedom center Seven Muslims have put an restraining order on a reporter in Texas named Joe Kaufman and it seems free speech has been hamstrung in Europe and Canada but now they are trying to do it in the USA. If you want google it but I would make it another thread under free speech or whatever. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:58
|
Sparten,
You are on the wrong page mate
 You are quoting the part of the treaty addressing the right for EU citizens to take employment in another EU country. This is clearly not the issue in this case.
Any citizen of EU can travel freely within the borders of EU. You just have to be able to prove you are a citizen in EU, if you are asked to do so.
That is why most people carry their passport, although another document proving the same is adequate.
es_bih,
You only address the part of my post where we agree.
If you don't mind, please address the question in the last half part of my post which is the core issue.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:06
|
No Northman, I am not on the wrong page. The right to move around in the EU is based on the free movement of workers, Article 39.
I know I am a just a swarthy, stupid Paki, who has no idea of "Western Values", but I would have thought three years of EU Law at the Uni of London LLB, and then at post graduate level would give me at least an idea of what the law is about. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:06
|
If you apply this in such a case, then foreigners who are not white should all be turned back at the border, in case the BNP starts another riot over immigration. Such laws are to be employed in good faith (in the legal sense of the term) at the discretion of the state as tools, they are not loopholes by which the state is to be blackmailed. I would say that if the state attempted to apply this in such a manner, two limbs of the Wednesbury test obviously apply (extraneous consideration and unreasonableness) and the courts are bound to intervene and overturn. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:13
|
For the record, I don't think the decision is a reasonable one. But I am of the opinion that the right of the UK Government to exclude Mr Wilders or anyone else is settled law. Northman, my dissertation in my Bachelors was actually on movement with the EU. So I am ready to answer any questions. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:33
Perhaps ... but doing it in practice would be difficult, as administrative decisions can be appealed to the courts in the UK, who have the power to override if the Wednesbury test is met. Such has occurred in immigration decisions made with far less cause; these precedents would, I imagine, guarantee that no such decision would stand long. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:34
I'm sorry Sparten - you are on the right page.
It is that article which deals with it - just in a different way than stated in the article. It is not limited to workers anymore.
Let me quote from http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/freetravel/fsj_freetravel_intro_en.htm#part_1 - this page:
So to us common mortals, it means that we freely can go anywhere we want - without the endless lines on checkpoints I remember from my youth, waiting for everyone ahead in the line to have his passport checked.
Lets go back on topic.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:39
|
^
Well I still have the endless lines of checks everywhere I go in Europe. maybe when I am your age, they will also be a thing of the past.
Its true that the defination of free movement of workers has been extended (perhaps far beyond the framers intent) by various case law of the ECJ, and that yes practically as long as you have a valid ID you should be granted entry, but the right of governments to restrict entry has never been abolished. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 21:14
How do you actually know that he only "hates" extremists? Judging from the things he has said and proposed that is one hell of an understatement. If I am correct he asked for Muslims to be barred from emigrating to the country, Qurans to be torn up, Muslims to be persuaded to leave, ... He says he hates Islam... there is no game there to be played... Hard to like "muslims" if you hate "Islam." That is a religious identity and spirituallity. That is like saying I like Christians but I hate Christianity... Again half the people seem to just overlook Sparten's post, which clarifies as to why they have a right to barr him from the country. Wheter that is positive or negative is beside the point. They practice the rights they have. Now if he should have been let in is another matter independent of them actually "not" having a right. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 21:27
|
North: Yes his presence may incite violence, which is a double edged sword... the party that incites violence because one racist bigot is in town does not have the moral high ground, but neither does the racist bigot who is there "just" to cause a reaction. That is like leaving a lit cigarette in a cardboard box next to a can of gasoline next to a dried up house next to a barn full of hay... you get the picture hopefully. As far as freedom of speech, seriously, to say that it is suffering because one idiot couldn't enter his country of choice is rather simplistic and wrong... if they had barred his hate-speech video from being shown, then yes, that would make a case against "freedom of speech." Seriously... there is only so much you can stretch that "freedom of speech" label anymore. Next thing I hear is a guy walking into a convent nude holding up the place and making a porn movie is "freedom of speech," too... Treading on the bizarre here with that notion. There is a difference between freedom of speech and someone entering a country, this is not the 18ct... his ideas do not suffer from this, as there are many medium through which he can transport them to the UK public, and already has. As far as my opinion on him entering or not... I don't really give a damn... in my opinion he is there for hate mongering, but not my problem as I am not insecure to feel threatened by a cloud of stupidity and racism. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 23:15
Freedom of speech extends beyond protecting the works in question, it also protects the individual from all reprisals or punitive action made as a response. You can't deprive an individual of their vote because of something they said and then claim it's a sufferage issue, rather than a free speech issue. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 23:48
|
es_bih, I "think" i see your point and usally i agree with a state having that right to allow or deny in who they wish. To me however this is not the issue. AFAIK... his intent was just to visit and perhaps present an expression of a view and then leave. Not as an enforcer of inciting millions towards killing, maiming or forcing the UK to deport innocent muslims in the UK. Whether the UK impliments his proposals is for the them too decide, not by him or the EU. After all he was going to be ignored anyways, and would have gone under the radar by simply not doing anything too deny entry and thereby only highlighting the growing ethnic divisions within the UK. Instead, what we have here is by his mere prescence alone, just another martyred case of the state denying a person their views, whether they are merely a visiting dignitary or an actual resident and equally regardless of the previous people they have turned away in the past; In which... it is now no longer an issue for even more converts to the viewpoints he is addressing. For that reason Muslims in the UK have been and seems set to be always misled by the people who constantly betray their trust, those very same people they choose to entrust too lead them parliament have used this to their own advantage of gaining more at the expense of the majority, even with the minority muslims losing out bigtime on this without even realising it. If everybody wants too get along in the UK and live peaceful lives and hope for the same in the later generations too come, then there is going to have to be more giving then taking to realize that long term goal. The very same goes for us here in the US! Speaking solely for myself, i don't have a problem with a visiting Muslim radical coming here to the states, spouting their hateful diatribe against us and then trotting back off to the middle east patting themselves on the back for smacking down the Great Satan. (Heck even our own residents can do that til their hearts are content or until the day they die) It happens all the time! Nearly every singleday since i have drawn my first breath it happens at the UN, in our universities, in our National Capitol or in our daily newspapers, on the internet and on our tv screens. Heck we've got people coming from all around the globe spouting hate or support for the US, and not just the muslims either. And the irony here is that i would be much more paranoid if the entire world was more sycophant in it's views towards the US! Strange as it sounds... this is just the culture i grew up in. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 00:39
Panther, your country refused entry to Cat Stevens
I think the number of British voters who will vote in favour of this, or who don't care, far exceeds the number who vote against it.
So they should apply the law according to country of origin?
Let me just make two clarifications here, 1) Britain isn't too hung up on this whole freedom thing. 2) Forget extremists, the only extremists that have bearing on this discussion are the Freedom of Speech extremists. Opposing this person would be a very widespread opinion. Getting thousands of people (from all religions) to demonstrate and place pressure on the govt would not be terribly hard. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 00:53
I kind of remember that, and i thought with the information supplied at the time and AFAIK, it was quite ridiculous to do so. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 01:18
|
If that justifies denying basic rights, then freedoms aren't an issue, and if freedoms aren't an issue, then what exactly is the argument against the film, again? If I were the BNP leadership, what I'd be doing right now is (discretely) acting to sabotage any opposition to banning Wilders or his film. And once it was established as precedent in British law that public security concerns could override freedom of speech, I'd launch a massive wave of extremely violent protests against the Quran or any other form of free speech by Muslims. By law, the state would have to comply.
And they are free to do so. Or are you proposing some sort of mobocracy here? In the long run, that would surely be detrimental to the Muslim community in Britain. Very much so. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 03:38
The Muslim mobocracy is already in place in Europe. Sometimes the authorities give in to it, like in this case, other times the authorities enforce the freedom of speech, and all hell breaks loose. We had an incident in Oslo not long ago. A pro-Palestinian demonstration was arranged and conducted in perfect order without any interference from Israeli supporters. The Israeli supporters however felt the need to make their side of the story heard, and organised a pro-Israeli demonstration. Again the debate flared up whether or not this should be allowed, as it could threaten social harmony, but luckily for them the Israeli supporters were granted this basic right. The Israeli demonstration was small, yet the Muslim minority was none too happy with it, and some responded by going on a general rampage arbitrarily smashing windows and attacking the pro-Israeli demonstrants, most of whom were elderly couples. The mob had to be beat down with tear gas and batons, many of them were arrested. So the question is; do we risk these incidents to defend freedom of speech, or do we discard it in the name of social harmony? Personally I'd say no price is too high if the alternative is allowing extremist mobs political influence, on the contrary these people should be confronted as uncompromisingly as possible. It should be unnecessary for me to say so, but I guess it's conventional to include a disclaimer where I ensure everyone I have nothing against Muslims or Islam nor do I think the present situation has anything to do with the religion itself. Regardless of religion however I do have something against people who behave in the manner described above, moblike that is, and in the present case of affairs their common denominator happens to be Islam and a Middle Eastern background. Let's say the government of Brazil had a similar problem with an agnostic minority, in no way would I feel as if criticism directed at them applied to me. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 07:45
No you misunderstand me, my fault. I am not saying that that Britain policy on allowing entry is a good thing. In fact I think its a bad thing. I am saying that it is already a thing. Since the British are already in the buisness of blocking people, its a good thing they have applied it impartially. I think that it is better that they impartially allow anyone unless they are a clear and present danger, however thanks to people just like Geert we aren't in that world. I'll admit that think its a bit sweet that Geert has got a taste of his own medicine - not that it'll do him any good.
No, I'm merely counting Northman's point that this is due to extremists. In this case, normal democratic action would be perfectly sufficient to convince the government.
In that case you employ a police force. Incidents that you describe aren't rare here. Some Serbs & Bosnians were going at it only a few weeks ago during the Australian open. Our police force just deals with it professionally and the problem is gone. ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 08:24
|
Islam is an ideological system that produces psycho-behavioural mutations (like other systems too). While Christianity's model in confrontations is passive victim, in Islam people are taught to respond with violence and even to instaurate Islam by violence. There is not islamic evangelization in Quran or Hadiths, Islam must be spread by other means. This is what the Prophet did, he was a warlord, not a peaceful man. A chapter in Quran is about war spoils.
Such an ideology allways will generate social violence. As long the Muslims are a minority, the fundamentalist ones don't show their real faces but when there is a majority, pogroms and other persecutions are current, as in almost all majoritary Muslim countries. This is why Wilders and other anti-islamic activists try to stop the expansion of Islam in Europe. Is not about racism, we are feared for our comfort. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 10:50
|
edgewaters,
Judicial Review as understood under the law of England and Wales can only overturn an administrative action, if the authority acted outside its powers. Clearly not the case here. Or if proper procedures were not followed. With very few exceptions (that don't apply here), the JR is not about the merits of the decision. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 13:14
Extreme Far Right - Muslims are running riot, attacking our children and stealing our woman - Authorities are scared of the muslims - The hard working white man must stand up and fight these infedel - Their religous materials must be burned and their religous venues attacked. - Muslims must be deported and wiped out from our country Muslims in Europe are increasingly being made scapegoats for all the problems, its become acceptable to defend men who call for their ethnic cleansing and burning their religous texts and calling those against such views "extremist muslims"... ------------- What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal. Albert Pine |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 13:27
No it doesn't have to be a case of ultra vires. Wednesbury test allows courts in the UK to intervene in administrative decisions that meet any one of three preconditions (known as 'limbs'): taking into account extraneous matters, not taking into account relevant matters, or unreasonableness. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 13:44
Theres always one. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 14:50
|
Hello Menu Couldn't agree more seeing how poor Romanians and Serbian were forcibly converted to Islam and Greece being a stronghold of Wahhabism. Al-Jassas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 15:12
To say that you are completely full of s--t would I be wrong, or...?... especially after I spent hours in here giving you the opposite of that... I guess not reading makes one smarter... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 15:17
Until 10 years ago Romania wasn't even considered "Europe," nor were the rest of the balkan states... Also who in their right mind (aside from a handful of Chinese immigrants) wants to move to Romania if there are W. European states that provide 100X more "comfort" that Romania and the rest of the Balkans dream of having for the citizens they already have, let us not even think about the ones they could potentially have in the future. People are moving out of the Balkans in rather large numbers for over a decade now. ------------- |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 18:44
|
The real question is why bother giving Menumoret a reply? His line of thinking is simply 21st century version of Nazi xenophobia (The Jews are corrupting our children etc. etc.)
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-Feb-2009 at 23:54
First of all, there is no such thing as the "UK" courts. The Wednesbury test applies in England and Wales, not Scotland and N Ireland. Secondly the court in Wednesbury (specifivally Lord Greene MR said "They (the courts) can only interfere with an act of executive authority if it be shown that the authority has contravened the law" or acted unreasoanably. The facts in Wednesbury were that the local authorities were using irrelevent considerations in their judgements. There are no irrelevant considerations in thei judgements here. Courts cannot overturn a valid decision just becuase they dislike it. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 04:29
Because I didn't have anything better to do that day ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 12:23
|
Irrelevant consideration is only one of the three possible preconditions in the test. Unreasonableness is equally valid, so the courts can, in fact, overturn an administrative decision if they 'dislike' it's unreasonableness - even if no irrelevant considerations have been made. "Wednesbury unreasonableness" is, in and of itself, sufficient. It only needs to be "outrageous in its defiance of accepted moral standards", which would presumably include things like restricting one's travel on the basis of political statements. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 13:43
|
It is clear that you have never practiced in England and Wales.My advise, edgewaters would be to read the whole judgement, not the "three part test" that you seem fixated on. The dictum of Lord Greene MR in Wednesbury and subsequent case history are relevant here. Unreasonableness of action is not something that Wednesbury introduced in the English Legal System, indeed it has existed for centuries before; see for instance Short v. Poole Corporation [1926] Ch. 66 (cited in Wednesbury). Unreasonableness here means that the decision was one that no authority could have taken it, the example given was sacking a red headed teacher, just because she was red headed. Unless of course there were some valid reasons, to take the example, if a previous and very popular teacher had been red headed and been killed (say in a car accident), you could say that hiring another red headed teacher would not be appropriate; if you are of the opinion that it would be upsetting to the children.
I can't speak for the way courts act in Canada, perhaps they do overturn decisions that the dislike. But that is not the practice in England and Wales. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Feb-2009 at 14:32
|
True. I am not a lawyer, or even close; I studied as a legal clerk.
Yes ... we have a special concept of procedural rights in both administrative and judicial decisions, known as "fundamental justice", which is currently quite dynamic. Its based on unreasonableness but it's constitutionally enshrined, so enjoys an altogether different status than case law. Administrative challenges are allowed under a related concept in the Constitution, "Access to Justice", especially where a person's rights are at issue. Case law specifically establishes that "utilitarian concerns" and "administrative convenience" are totally invalid in such a conflict, they are considered something like the idea of extraneous consideration in Wednesbury. Notably, the two most important precedents here were challenges against decisions made by none other than the Ministry of Immigration. My understanding of English law may be tainted by all this, as you suggest. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 11:38
This is really a response to your last post in this thread, but as it was removed just now I cite your previous post since the issue is much the same. I think your antagonism is misplaced. Islam is not at the root of the conflict, it functions more like a superficial legitimization abused by both sides. The problem is not Islam but rather the popular culture and traditions of many of the countries where Islam is the majority religion, many of which are as alien to Europeans as they are to human rights, and on top of these customs you have a political situation which only serves to polarize these areas further. Consider the following scenario; every Westerner converts to Islam tomorrow. Would they suddenly be radically different people? Of course not. They may adopt a few new habits like praying five times a day and avoiding pork, but no way would they start flying into rages over cartoons, take part in riots, forcing their daughters into marriage, committing honour killings, flirting with extremism or denying the holocaust. This behavior stems partly from cultural attitudes that have nothing to do with Islam, as well as the political situation of many Muslim countries. That is not to say they do not constitute a problem, which I have already emphasized in earlier posts, but Islam is not at the root of it. This is where Wilders is mistaken; he can see the symptoms of the disease, but not what caused them. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 16:00
|
Interesting thread. So who wins? The religious radicals or the hate mongers? I liked this post from Edgewaters:
I agree ... I think inciting violence is the test in applying free speech. Wilders should be allowed to demand that we ban the Quran, just as Wilders' opponents should be allowed to demand that we ban his film, but we shouldn't give in to either one of them. We should only come down on those who explicitly call for violence as a solution. It is the only thing that matters because without violence, neither of them have any practical means of imposing their anti-free speech agenda on any unwilling subject. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 16:54
|
UK and other Western countries deny entry to people everyday. I think at least one person is denied entry to the UK every week. Countless more are denied visas. Of course, most of these people are from the third world, have wrong skin colour, or they are belong to the wrong religion. I remember even a famous Iranian director was not allowed to enter the US when he was invited to an award ceremony (Oscars?). So why is this news all of a sudden? If this guy was making movies on Jews, and denied entry, would he be in the papers? I think not. The reason this is news is Western anti-muslim racism. The reason the government want him out is because they are worried about the consequences of their earlier anti-islamic policy. They don't want any more domestic trouble because of a Dutch nazi. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 16:59
Spot on. ------------- |
Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 16-Feb-2009 at 18:40
|
Wilders always seems to be in the center of controversy. ------------- Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. George Washington - March 15, 1783 |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 17-Feb-2009 at 00:54
Absolutely. David Irving's libel trial didn't exactly go unnoticed. |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 13:56
Not comparable, Irving was not denied entry to the UK. He was the one who sued people, because Britain has stupid libel laws, and he failed. In this case, Wilders is not suing anyone, and he was turned away because the state is worried about domestic trouble, not because he is saying unacceptable things (it has little to do with 'freedom of speech', because the film itself is not banned). Also, think, if he was a non-white muslim making films about jews would it be in the news? If it were in the news would the headlines complain about 'freedom of speech'? Of course not. You are just, as usual, siding with the fascists. ------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 14:25
|
True, but the point is that some perceived it as a free speech issue and there was plenty of coverage. This makes it highly unlikely that high-profile authors or filmwriters taking an anti-Jewish slant, who were refused entry, would go unnoticed by the media and public. It doesn't seem to matter what the 'angle' is, anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish, some people will get upset about free speech issues and others will defend subordinating free speech rights of the individual in favour of the public good. As an aside, Irving has had travel issues that have been widely covered, in fact. He was denied entry to Canada in '92 for instance.
Well the laws can't be that stupid if he failed to win, can they? Or do you think the law is stupid because he didn't manage to sue somebody for calling him what he is? Your complaint is puzzling. |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 14:27
|
Come on Bey - don't insult your own intelligence.
I'm certainly not advocating any ideas of Wilders - and I'm not siding with any fascists - far from it.
Like you say, Wilders was turned away because the state is worried about domestic trouble. He is not turned away for anything he has done or plan to do. That is the core issue.
The state turn him away because they know/fear his presence will cause others to break the law.
If that isn't bending down to terror and fear, I don't know what to call it.
The danish cartoonist has lived underground since the events with good reason - should he be expelled because someone will try to kill him?
You are right that technically, this isolated event has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech" - but it is caused by everyones right to air their opinion - him included.
------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 15:11
|
Edgewaters, Irving is false analogy. Answer my questions if you will.
Yes they bloody can. The fact that he lost means the judge was not stupid, not the law.
It is puzzling to you because you have no idea about British libel law: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/matthiasrath.medialaw - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/17/matthiasrath.medialaw
I was not talking about you.
I don't necessarily disagree. I am not saying that the state is right or wrong in doing this. I haven't seen the movie and don't know this character, so I can't say what I would have done in if I was in their place. This is not important. What I point out is the state does this to radical Muslims all the time, and the media ignores or celebrates it. When the state does it to a white anti-Muslim, everyone is upset about 'freedom of speech' all of a sudden. I was actually surprised that the British government sent him back given that he is an MP. They are smarter than many, they know that the people who are likely to cause trouble will remember the hipocracy. Liberals in the media will just shed crocodile tears and whine a bit and forget.
So? Hitler came to power by propaganda allowed by 'freedom of speech', so World War II was wrong? Or was 'freedom of speech' wrong? Maybe neither was wrong, but people have to make tough decisions in real life which is different from the fairy cloud land of Platonic ideals the Western liberals inhabit.
------------- |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 15:41
|
The judge was applying the law ... not making it.
Yes, libel laws certainly do run counter to free speech notions at times.
Personally I would be quite upset if the protests against Wilders were banned, as I have already mentioned. They have every right to say what they like so long as they do not call for violence. I am not the media, and I can have my own viewpoints and speak for myself. I do not like the way the media chooses the relative importance of different issues or where it directs its focus any more than you do (and I largely agree with your observation), but that doesn't really change the facts of the matter itself. You can't punish Wilders just because the media has chosen to cover him and not somebody else.
Hitler made explicit calls for violence. That's where free speech ought to have ended ... Bey.
[/QUOTE]
|
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 18-Feb-2009 at 15:45
Well - not to cave in to terror and fear is important to me and most other people on this side of the planet and I think it's the core issue.
The state acted cowardly - and next time they will find themselves on their knees if they pursue this direction.
I totally agree that the law should be equal for all.
I also know the press is biased - like everywhere else in the world. The press will, with a few exceptions, always reflect mainstream perceptions - but they shouldn't cave in to fear either.
------------- |