Two responses to Geert Wilders


by Sid (Faisal)
11th February, 2009 at 11:34 pm    

This is the response of the Quilliam Foundation to the news that Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP who takes ownership of the “controversial” film Fitna has been barred from entry to the UK to attend a screening of the film:

The Quilliam Foundation has announced its opposition to the decision by the Home Office to ban Geert Wilders, the Dutch MP, from the UK. The Quilliam Foundation believes that although many of Wilders’ public statements are bigoted, ill-informed and offensive to people of all faiths, this is not an adequate reason to prevent him from coming to the UK.

The Quilliam Foundation says that Wilders’ ideas should be challenged through debate – not through government intervention that may only make him a martyr to his supporters.

The directors of the Quilliam Foundation therefore challenge Geert Wilders to an open and public debate on Islam and its compatibility with European values.

Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam Foundation, says:

“Banning Geert Wilders from the UK is not the solution. Just as the ideas of non-violent Islamist groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be tackled through debate and argument, so should those of Wilders and others. Freedom of speech should be protected – so long as people do not use this freedom to call for violence against others.

“Wilders has evidently been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant. We therefore challenge him to an open debate in which we will argue that Islam is not an inherently violent religion and that, contrary to what he apparently believes, Muslims are not a threat to Europe and its values.”

Ed Husain, the co-Director of the Quilliam Foundation, says:

“Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence. As a result, unlike in the case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, I do not support the decision to ban him from the UK. By threatening parliament with a mob, Lord Ahmed is contributing to the negative portrayal of Muslims and their religion.”

And this is Lord Nazir Ahmed’s response when he was invited to a private meeting with the Dutch MP in a conference room in the House of Lords.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

Lord Ahmed’s reaction is most certainly a robust denouncement of Wilders. But it resembles too closely for comfort, the ugly gesture of a rabble-rousing feudal oligarch, threatening mob violence against the House of Lords.

The Quilliam Foundation also denounces the Dutch politician but its reaction is measured, balanced and throws down the challenge to Wilders for an open and public debate on his brand of neo-Nazi politics.

If you wanted to tackle Geert Wilders, his film Fitna and the Vlaams Belang head on, I think we all know which of the two is the preferable approach.

So let’s give a round of applause to Lord Ahmed. [A joke]


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture,Current affairs,EDL,Humour,Muslim,Race politics






147 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. blah — on 11th February, 2009 at 11:37 pm  

    The Quisling Foundation support Gert Wilders abusing the Quran and the Prophet but support Yusuf Qardawi being banned.

    Can there credibility with Muslims get lower?

  2. blah — on 11th February, 2009 at 11:40 pm  

    By the way Sid your link to what Lord Nazir was originally doing comes from the far right Brussel Journal

    The link next to the article is “defeating eurabia”
    Would you accept someone linking to the protocols and the elders of zion?

    You really must find some better reading material Sid.
    No wonder you use terms like “taqiyya” which Islamophobes have memorised and repeatlike sheep

  3. blah — on 11th February, 2009 at 11:42 pm  

    This is the opening line of the article Sid linked to

    “The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in? This:”
    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765
    Facsinating. Sid considers an article suggesting Muslims be barred from the H of L worthy of our consideration.

  4. Sid — on 11th February, 2009 at 11:48 pm  

    Lord Ahmed’s reaction was also reported in the Pakistan Daily Times.

  5. Pete999 — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:27 am  

    Good to see that the Government and those spiffing chaps and chapesses in the Lords understand freedom of speach and all in entails…

  6. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:18 am  

    Sid, your link to the Pakistan Daily Times does not work. Blah does make a valid point, why the Brussels Journal?

    Even HP doesn’t cover it quite like you do.

  7. Ashik — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:47 am  

    Just when we thought Sid couldn’t sink any lower….

    I think rather than quantity, Sid should work on the quality of his articles on PP.

    A coherant argument on behalf of Mr. Wilders can be made on the grounds of freedom of movement within the EU. I was not aware the UK govt had powers to ban EU citizens from the UK.

  8. Andrew — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:57 am  

    “I was not aware the UK govt had powers to ban EU citizens from the UK.”

    The government had (still has?) the power to ban people from Northern Ireland (part of the UK) coming to the rest of the UK! So the government likely does have the power to exclude anyone it likes.

  9. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 8:38 am  

    I can understand how this will irk people. It’s a matter of freedom of speech and every time that is threatened, we get kind of upset and defintely uncomfortable.

    However when using other recent bannings, it is not out of order. Snoop Dogg was banned from entering the UK (criminal in my opinion) because his music is offensive. That arab bloke you guys mentioned Yusuf Qardawi, again he is offensive.

    Geert Wilders falls into the same category (well not including Snoop Dogg).

  10. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 8:45 am  

    The is a difference between the Snoop Dogg / Qaradawi cases on the one hand and Wilders on the other.

    In the former cases there might be concern that they would stir up violence against their targets, ie gays / jews and gays respectively.

    In the Wilders case the all too obvious proximate concern is that the targets would turn to violence.

    Yes, indeed, well done Lord Ahmed!

    And the film is being shown anyway, just without Wilders there.

  11. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:04 am  

    cjcjc

    “In the former cases there might be concern that they would stir up violence against their targets, ie gays / jews and gays respectively.

    In the Wilders case the all too obvious proximate concern is that the targets would turn to violence”

    yes of course because in cjcjc world Muslims dont get attacked and non-Muslims are never stirred to violence against Muslims. Perhaps he/she wants to ignore attacks on Muslims which happened after a spooks programme was broadcast or after Jack Straw made his veil comments.

  12. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:18 am  

    I’m not denying that…but I very much doubt that it was fear of violence against Muslims which drove this specific decision.

    Is the concern that those of their lordships who turn up to the screening (which is going ahead anyway) might run amok?

    Or does the government not want to see more of the delightful “behead those who insult Islam” placards around the place?

  13. dave bones — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:19 am  

    Snoop Dogg is banned from the UK?

  14. billericaydicky — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:33 am  

    It’s not just Snoop Dog but several other homophobic murder musicians. Wilders is a an elected member of the parliament of an EU country and therefore cannot be kept out of the UK any more that could Le Pen.

    It s quite right that people like Snoop Dog, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and a whole range of others are banned as it sends out a message to people who advocate violence that it will not be tolerated in this country even if Livingstone and Galloway disagree.

  15. Ravi Naik — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:36 am  

    Pathetic. So the movie Fitna wants to depict Islam as the religion of violence, and so Lord Ahmed threatens to have a mob of 10,000 Muslims to prevent this message for coming across. And funny how Refresh, Blah and good old Ashik are totally clueless about the irony. Also, threatening to censor speech by violence should be penalized heavily.

    Geert Wilders is an untalented and superficial git. His movie – which has been openly available on the Internet – is crap – except that his profile was considerably increased thanks to the likes of Lord Ahmed. And now Lord Ahmed wants to increase his profile by finding the outrage of du jour.

    I am sick and tired of fundamentalists – hindus, christians and muslims – who make threats of violence – to censor anything they don’t like. It is about time that we here in Britain adopt a similar stance as Denmark: a full commitment on freedom of speech, and not be dominated by these punks.

    If people believe that Geert is wrong, then there should be a rational debate on the subject, not violence. Censoring only makes you look weak, like you do not want the “truth” to come out. Lord Ahmed could
    have said: you know, let’s watch this movie, but then at the end, I would like to explain the fallacies in front of Mr. Geert.

    He didn’t.

    Sid’s post is superb.

  16. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:43 am  

    billeracydicky

    “It’s not just Snoop Dog but several other homophobic murder musicians. Wilders is a an elected member of the parliament of an EU country and therefore cannot be kept out of the UK any more that could Le Pen.”

    Yes he can. The law gives the Home Secretary the right to ban him and that has what she has done. Unless you are suggesting the HS has acted illegally!

    Hes been invited by Lord Pearson of UKIP – a party that
    wants to leave the EU!!!

    “It s quite right that people like Snoop Dog, Louis Farrakhan, David Duke and a whole range of others are banned as it sends out a message to people who advocate violence that it will not be tolerated in this country even if Livingstone and Galloway disagree.”

    David Duke was also an elected representative. He and Farrakhan, as odious as they are, have never advocated violence. Farrakhan was banned for calling Judaism a “gutter religion”

    The double standards are galling

  17. Ravi Naik — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    David Duke was also an elected representative. He and Farrakhan, as odious as they are, have never advocated violence. Farrakhan was banned for calling Judaism a “gutter religion”

    David Duke was a klansman and to this day he advocates segregation of races. He is not too different from Farrakhan – except that David Duke never said publically that Hitler was a great man.

  18. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:56 am  

    Ravi Naik
    “Pathetic. So the movie Fitna wants to depict Islam as the religion of violence, and so Lord Ahmed threatens to have a mob of 10,000 Muslims to prevent this message for coming across. And funny how Refresh, Blah and good old Ashik are totally clueless about the irony.”

    Yet you seem to miss the irony of considering Wilders a free speech advocate when he wants to ban the Quran!
    Or of the fact that Muslim speakers have also been banned from the uk

    “I am sick and tired of fundamentalists – hindus, christians and muslims – who make threats of violence – to censor anything they don’t like. It is about time that we here in Britain adopt a similar stance as Denmark: a full commitment on freedom of speech, and not be dominated by these punks.”

    Oh like Jyllands Posten which refused to publich cartoons insulting Jesus (pbuh) and to publish the holocaust cartoons from Iran?

    BTW Denmark still has blasphemy laws

    “Sid’s post is superb.”

    Is this the same Sid who deletes post he doesnt like?

  19. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:57 am  

    Also Lord Nazir has denied that allegation against him.

    Obviously the same old faces are targetting the Lord.

  20. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:00 am  

    Ravi Naik
    “Pathetic. So the movie Fitna wants to depict Islam as the religion of violence, and so Lord Ahmed threatens to have a mob of 10,000 Muslims to prevent this message for coming across. And funny how Refresh, Blah and good old Ashik are totally clueless about the irony.”

    Ravi Lord Ahmed has denied ever doing this

  21. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:04 am  

    Ravi Naik

    “David Duke was a klansman and to this day he advocates segregation of races. He is not too different from Farrakhan – except that David Duke never said publically that Hitler was a great man.”

    So? He has abhorrent views. But he has never incited violence. Are you suggesting someone should be banned for saying “Hitler was a great man”?

    So why is his ban OK but not Wilders?

  22. damon — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:31 am  

    I heard Lord Ahmed being interviewed on the radio this morning, and he says that the comments attributed to him (about threatening to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House) were false, and that he had initiated legal action against the source of those alleged comments.

    How many Lords would have been likely to attend a screening of this stupid film anyway?
    Just a couple of UKIP nutters I would imagine.

    Wilders should not be banned from coming to the UK in my opinion …. just ignored.

  23. Rumbold — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:32 am  

    Lord Ahmed won’t have to worry about this for much longer anyway:

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Sentencing-of-Lord-Ahmed-put.4910215.jp

  24. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:33 am  

    So why is his ban OK but not Wilders?

    David Duke and Yusuf Qaradawi have. Snoop Dog’s gangsta rap glorifies gang violence and his visit to the UK came at a time when gang-related stabbings were out of control in London.

    But Wilders and the Flemish neo-Nazi party to which he belongs is smart, self-aware and slick enough to never explicitly incite violence even though we know his language does not differentiate between extremists and ordninary Muslims.

    That’s why we need to debate and expose the anti-Muslim bigotry inherent in Wilders’ philosophy with calm, reasoned debate.

    Not by oafish thuggery, Lord Ahmed.

  25. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:41 am  

    I wonder whether Lord Ahmed really has “initiated legal action”…I would be very surprised; it sounds like bluster.

    And Lib Dem Chris Huhne’s support for the ban on R4 this morning was quite pathetic.

    Anyway, shouldn’t Wilders be barging his way through Heathrow as we speak?
    Could be quite entertaining.

  26. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:46 am  

    If I was to make anti semetic comments, I may be banned from entering the UK, even though I didn’t ask for them to all be killed.

    What is the difference?

    his comments are the same as those of Nazi’s in Germany, before they got nasty and started killing people.

  27. DavidMWW — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:58 am  

    The stated reason for the Wilders ban is that his presence

    would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society

    and

    would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

    Edited to add: I did a lot of searching around for the “10,000 Muslims” allegation, and its source appears to be an unattributed assertion the Brussels Journal

  28. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:00 am  

    #26:

    None. But would you rather have Geert Wilders exposed and banned from the UK because of a reasoned exposé or because of the legacy of Lord Ahmed’s “10,000 Muslims” bluster?

    Which one shows Muslims in a better light by displaying their capablity of accepting freedom of speech but dismantling the language of hate?

  29. Andrew Lockhead — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:10 am  

    I agree that Mr Wilders should be allowed into the UK. It is hypocritical that we can see Islamist extremists demonstrating in London brandishing placards that call for the beheading of all those who oppose Islam, (with no action taken against them) and yet when Mr Wilders makes a film which merely highlights such actions, using only Islamic sources as his reference point, he is denied freedom of speech.

  30. Shamit — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:15 am  

    The only one thing I like about this decision is that the Secretary of State has the power to refuse entry to a MEP.

    I wonder how Brussels and Barroso are taking this news?

    I think Sid’s post makes great sense as does his argument about dismantling the language of hate. What bugs me most about this whole incident is that we are supposed to embrace freedom of speech in this country. Why not have a debate?

  31. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:17 am  

    Andrew Lockhead
    “I agree that Mr Wilders should be allowed into the UK. It is hypocritical that we can see Islamist extremists demonstrating in London brandishing placards that call for the beheading of all those who oppose Islam, (with no action taken against them)”

    What planet are you on? The protestors were arrested and jailed
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6133516.stm

  32. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:26 am  

    One protestor was jailed anyway.

    Were any others?

  33. Rumbold — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:39 am  

    Good point Shamit. I hadn’t thought about this as an example of one of the few areas that Britain can defy the EU in. It will soon be changed though.

  34. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:41 am  

    Well said Blah, the protestirs were jailed.

    Britain has made it clear that hate speech will not be allowed.

    We don’t need more entities like the BNP and HuT in our country.

  35. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:45 am  

    Ravi

    I think Sid does need to address the question of the validity of the story.

    Like DavidMWW I too did a fair bit of searching to see if Ahmed did actually say what Sid claims he said. I have found no links, at all. Other than that far-right journal.

    Not even HP mentions it. We can always wait for Melanie Philips.

    His link to Pakistan Daily Times does not work either.

    We all rely on verified links to stories, not that we don’t trust the poster – but it allows us to make independent judgement.

    With that in mind I think you might be overreacting.

  36. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:47 am  

    Somebody thinks that the Secretary of State has acted beyond her legal authority. Here:

    http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/2009/02/11/geert-wilders-the-home-offices-decision-is-unlawful/

    It seems a cogently argued case, but I’m no lawyer.

  37. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:49 am  

    As for the debate, I don’t think anyone should be overly worried by it.

    But I’ll be damned if I am going to join a debate framed by the far-right.

  38. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:53 am  

    Refresh

    This is the link to the Pakistan Daily Times story which covered this.

    It’s also covered in the Sun. Since you believe Lord Ahmed has been misrepresented, you really should present your proof to them ASAP and get them to remove the story.

  39. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    Rumbold
    “Good point Shamit. I hadn’t thought about this as an example of one of the few areas that Britain can defy the EU in. It will soon be changed though.”

    Wilders has been invited here by Lord Pearson. A UKIP peer – the party that wants Britain to leave the EU and continually condemsn EU interefence in UK law!

  40. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    Melanie Philips has commented on this:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml

    Though she doesn’t mention her sources for the ‘mobilisation’ either.

  41. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:04 pm  

    Sid youve been exposed but just keep digging

    “Refresh

    This is the link to the Pakistan Daily Times story which covered this.”

    The link says nothing about mobilizing 10,000 Muslims something you have based yor entire post on based on what was written in a far right anti-Muslim rag the Brussels Journal

    “It’s also covered in the Sun.”

    The Sun? Are you for real?
    Unbelieveable

    BTW your link is to a noticeboard full of people calling for the expulsion of Muslims
    Nice sid

  42. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

    Unbelieveable

    Shocking isn’t it? I suggest you get on the timetable to have it expunged too.

  43. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

    Unbelieveable

    “Shocking isn’t it? I suggest you get on the timetable to have it expunged too.”

    Nice try Sid. No Sid your quoting the Sun, as a reputable newspaper, in order to back up your arguments is shocking

  44. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:13 pm  

    No I quoted the Sun because having stories of a Muslim Labour peer acting like a tosser in a national newspaper is bad news for Muslims in general. Do you agree?

  45. fug — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

    £80 000 a year each to be just like you, neat gig ey sid?

    Lord Nazir Ahmed isnt always wrong, he was spot on about raising the question of how many british jews fought for Israel in the recent assault on gaza. This stuff isnt his PAID UP specialism, like it is ‘JidnTed’ Husain’s.

    Its also a non-event being turned into an event by the usual suspects to wind people up because now they dont have the wind up opportunity of the chap coming over. I wonder what dutch people think of him.

  46. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

    Sid,

    You quoted in your opinion piece this from the Brussels Journal:

    Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

    which would be a pretty inflammatory thing to have said. Others here have said that the Brussels Journal may has it’s own agenda. I don’t know.

    However this is hardly supporting evidence:

    The Pakistani Times:

    UK parliament calls off screening controversial film

    LONDON: The UK’s parliament has cancelled the screening of a controversial film, titled ‘Fitna’, by right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community.

    The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords. The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed held a meeting with the government chief whip of the House of Lords and leader of the House, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, the British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community.

    The film has created a huge controversy around the world, especially in Europe. The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second-highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service – which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made ‘in the context of public debate’. But on Thursday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Wilders’ right to freedom of expression, and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights. The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam.

    All that says was that there was a meeting. It doesn’t even mention a ‘mobilisation’.

    The Sun link is a joke, yes?

    Ahmed says no threat was made. Perhaps the other party to the meeting could clarify?

  47. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

    blah
    “Nice try Sid. No Sid your quoting the Sun, as a reputable newspaper, in order to back up your arguments is shocking”

    Sid
    “No I quoted the Sun because having stories of a Muslim Labour peer acting like a tosser in a national newspaper is bad news for Muslims in general. Do you agree?”

    Even when they are false? And why is the Sun lying about Muslims (which it has done before) bad news for Muslims rather than bad for the Sun?

    You say that was your motivation for posting . Really?
    In post #38 you quoted the Sun to back up your initial quoting of the Brussels Journal.

    Heres what you wrote – it is clearly critical of Lord Ahmed based on what the Brussel Journals (and laterly the Sun) wrote :

    “And this is Lord Nazir Ahmed’s response when he was invited to a private meeting with the Dutch MP in a conference room in the House of Lords.

    Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

    Lord Ahmed’s reaction is most certainly a robust denouncement of Wilders. But it resembles too closely for comfort, the ugly gesture of a rabble-rousing feudal oligarch, threatening mob violence against the House of Lords.”

  48. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

    I had no idea that the Brussels Journal had its own agenda either. Does that mean the Lord Ahmed story of “10,000 Muslims” is fabrication?

    blah:

    Even when they are false? And why is the Sun lying about Muslims (which it has done before) bad news for Muslims rather than bad for the Sun?

    The Sun is actually the newspaper that most Muslims in this country actually read.

  49. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:55 pm  

    Sid,

    ‘Does that mean the Lord Ahmed story of “10,000 Muslims” is fabrication?’

    We don’t know. It was your responsibility to find out, as the premise of your article relies almost completely on that assertion.

  50. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 12:55 pm  

    Sid,

    I cannot get to the bottom of that quote. There doesn’t appear to be a mainstream attribution for it – other than the aforesaid Brussels Journal. Though it’s quoted on sites like Stormfront, Jihadwatch and the like, taken from there. Which is possibly where it was picked up for the Sun ‘Have Your Say’ section.

    Dunno.

    Melanie Philips now has her take on it in the Mail too:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1141806/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-How-Britain-cradle-liberty-sleepwalking-cultural-suicide.html

    By the way, The Brussels Journal runs articles like this:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/852

  51. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:08 pm  

    We don’t know. It was your responsibility to find out, as the premise of your article relies almost completely on that assertion.

    Ed Husain also thought Lord Ahmed was guilty of “threatening parliament with a mob” in the PR.

    Let’s wait and see.

    In any case, it doesn’t detract from the thrust of the article, which is to debate Wilders and neo-Nazis like him, not ban him and make a mockery of freedom of speech.

  52. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

    Sid,

    On Melanie Philips in the Spectator and the Mail:

    On the Spectator blog, she said:

    This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak.

    In the Mail, she said:

    This meeting had been postponed amid claims that Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak.

    Spot the difference? OK, ‘amid claims’. That’s the difference.

    Fast moving game being a journalist.

  53. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Sid
    “I had no idea that the Brussels Journal had its own agenda either. Does that mean the Lord Ahmed story of “10,000 Muslims” is fabrication?”

    Seriously on the same page as The Lord Amed article is a book advertised called “Defeating Eurabia”. If you came across a site advertising “the protocols and elders of zion” would you think “this site has no agenda”

    The question is why you chose the Brussels Journal? Youve just made clear you werent aware of its reality. If it was because it was the only paper running the story shouldnt that have told you something? Seems like you had an agenda.

    Sid
    “The Sun is actually the newspaper that most Muslims in this country actually read.”

    1) There is no way of knowing that
    Moreover
    2) It is irrelevant

    and most important the issue is
    3) The fact you consider the Sun a credible news source.

  54. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Sid

    ‘Let’s wait and see.

    In any case, it doesn’t detract from the thrust of the article, which is to debate Wilders and neo-Nazis like him, not ban him and make a mockery of freedom of speech.’

    Don’t you think you already had a good piece without over-egging the pudding? You had no need to bring in the ’10,000 leagues’, especially when you had no evidence. It seems even Melanie Philips is starting to batten-down the hatches, as Douglas has picked-up.

    But using a far-right site really is going too far.

    None of it was necessary!

  55. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

    Sid @ 52,

    Final para. I agree, as long as he refrains from advocating violence.

  56. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:28 pm  

    blah,

    On the same page as this article:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/852

    There is an advert for the Muslim Matrimonials website!

    Is that not a tad hypocritical?

  57. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:38 pm  

    Sid
    “Ed Husain also thought Lord Ahmed was guilty of “threatening parliament with a mob” in the PR.”

    Gee Sid maybe Ed gets things wrong too and has an agenda. Much of what he has written in the “Islamist” has been seriously challenged. But the fact he is against “Islamists” seems to be enough for you. Mmmm.

    “In any case, it doesn’t detract from the thrust of the article, which is to debate Wilders and neo-Nazis like him, not ban him and make a mockery of freedom of speech.”

    Well technically Wilders freedom of speech hasnt been breached. His film is freely available on the internet and will be shown at the house of Lords. He can say what he wishes in Holland or via satellite, within the law. His freedom of movement has been breached. But since he so rabidly anti-immigration he should surely approve

    And if you are so pro-free speech why do you delete comments you dont like?

  58. The Common Humanist — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:44 pm  

    The Govt has banned Wilders because they fear that there will be a violent muslim backlash and somebody will get hurt.

    Great. Make a right wing tool (and he is) a martyr to the wingnuts AND kowtow to the islamist wingnuts all in one go.

    TCH

  59. The Common Humanist — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:52 pm  

    I suspect we might have to go all the way back to the 1600s to find a Lord of the land threatening Parliament with a violent religious hate mob.

    And this guy is from my party…..[TCH bangs head on table for quite a while - come back in abit]

    [Recovers poise]

    Will the Govt extend the same principle to Islamist preachers of hate, such as Ibrahim Mousawi? Is Al ‘I love Hitler’ Qaradawi banned? Bilal Phillips perchance? Yayha Ibrahim?

    Anyone care to explain why hate filled islamists should get a free pass but this dutch right wing wanker get banned? Either we ban em all or let em in and embarrass the shiot out of them in honest debate?
    Or are there commentors here who don’t see these islamists as extreme?

    I hope not.

    TCH

  60. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    ‘I suspect we might have to go all the way back to the 1600s to find a Lord of the land threatening Parliament with a violent religious hate mob.

    And this guy is from my party…..[TCH bangs head on table for quite a while - come back in abit]‘

    Before you injure yourself too badly, why not wait for the evidence that Sid expects to materialise?

  61. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:17 pm  

    douglas clark

    “blah,

    On the same page as this article:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/852

    There is an advert for the Muslim Matrimonials website!

    Is that not a tad hypocritical?”

    Douglas I believe that ad self generates wherever Muslim is mentioned much. And it is mentioned much on the Brussels Journal.

    I recall the far right zionist loonie tune Debbie Schlussel and her genocidal supporters fuming becuase such ads had appeared on her site

  62. DavidMWW — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    I agree with Sid that the thrust of the article is spot on. It’s this “10,000 Muslims” claim which is of dodgy provenance.

    However, there IS credible evidence that Ahmed did threaten some kind of mass protest. The Associated Press of Pakistan, which would appear to have got the news from Lord Ahmed himself (it is alone in quoting him, and it seems quite likely that he contacted them to boast about his achievement), says this:

    As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled. Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

  63. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:19 pm  

    And if you are so pro-free speech why do you delete comments you dont like?

    Because they were replete with antisemitic bigotry. You should know, you posted them.

    And *you* don’t have an agenda?

  64. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

    Thanks DavidMWW, I think we might now be getting somewhere.

    I had imagined there would be protests from a wide variety of groups including anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-war and of course muslim groups.

    This is the sort of publicity Wilders and UKIP seek.

  65. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:37 pm  

    DavidMWW,

    Good searching.

    As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

    I don’t think Ahmed would see it as anything other than a victory for the Muslim community, wrongly in my opinion. That he made any ‘threats’ is denied by him and he is allegedly considering taking the Spectator to court. See here:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5710559.ece

    Lord Ahmed denies allegations in the Spectator that he had “threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak”. Lord Ahmed told The Times that he was considering legal action against the Spectator. A spokesman for the House of Lords did not comment on the allegation.

    For once, I’d really like to see a court case over this, as it is probably the only way we – Joe Public – will ever get to the bottom of it.

  66. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:44 pm  

    Bilal Phillips perchance?

    This delightful guy is guest of honour at the forthcoming Queen Mary Islamic Soc annual dinner…sounds fun.
    Separate “brothers” and “sisters” tickets of course!

    http://www.queenmaryisoc.co.uk/dinner09.html

    Did Wilders arrive at Heathrow by the way?
    If so, what happened?

  67. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:44 pm  

    And if you are so pro-free speech why do you delete comments you dont like?

    Sid
    “Because they were replete with antisemitic bigotry. You should know, you posted them.”

    Then why do you support Wilders right to free speech?
    Mmm so you support Wilders anti-Muslim bigotry but want to censor what you claim is “anti-semitic” bigotry

    No double standards there

    In any case it was hardly “anti-semitic”. I merely pointed out in response to your insistance that Muslims be grateful to Jewish anti-fascists that many of the biggests Islamophobes stirring up hatred against Muslims are Jewish. Thats a fact.

    It also doesnt explain why you deleted other posts when you were shown to be wrong

    “And *you* don’t have an agenda?”

    My agenda is to defend Muslims against Islamophobia and a general one of fairness

    Whats yours? Seems to me its demonising Muslims

  68. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

    cjcjc

    “This delightful guy is guest of honour at the forthcoming Queen Mary Islamic Soc annual dinner…sounds fun.
    Separate “brothers” and “sisters” tickets of course!”

    As in Orthodox Synangogues you mean?

  69. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

    Do orthodox synagogues hold segregated annual dinners?

    If so, I wish to ridicule them too.

    Do they invite extremist preachers to such dinners?

    If so, I wish to condemn them too.

    (Though I would be surprised.)

  70. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    [i]test[/i]

  71. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

    [I]testing[/I]

  72. platinum786 — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:59 pm  

    damn it, how do you people get red writing and italics etc?

    btw feel free to delete the above posts.

  73. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 2:59 pm  


    Then why do you support Wilders right to free speech?
    Mmm so you support Wilders anti-Muslim bigotry but want to censor what you claim is “anti-semitic” bigotry

    Specifically? Well he’s not actually being racist on a cheap, superficial level whereas you have been, repeatedly. That’s the kind of content which is going to be deleted without question.

    But it would be useful to the cause if you can identify where in his work Wilders *is* employing racism. That’s what we need to work for anyway.

    Whats yours? Seems to me its demonising Muslims

    I think that accusation can be levelled at the MCB in regard to their silence on the issue of Bangladeshi Muslims who were slaughtered with sanction from the Jamaat-e-Islam, rather than me. But what do you care?

  74. Shamit — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:02 pm  

    “In any case it was hardly “anti-semitic”. I merely pointed out in response to your insistance that Muslims be grateful to Jewish anti-fascists that many of the biggests Islamophobes stirring up hatred against Muslims are Jewish. Thats a fact.”

    How is that a fact? Could you please tell me?

    “My agenda is to defend Muslims against Islamophobia and a general one of fairness”

    If your agenda is fairness then I guess fairness has a different meaning altogether.

    Voices like yourself, in my opinion, with your constant stupid assumptions and not so hidden prejudices and biases probably don’t do much favour to the wider Muslim community in general.

    On the other hand, Sid’s deliberate attempt to highlight the common bonds of humanity as a greater cohesive force and not using religion as a divisive force probably resonates more with society at large.

    So Blah and your mates — why don’t you start arguing logically and without using religion as a shield? Is it too much to ask — I guess so.

  75. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

    Douglas

    ‘For once, I’d really like to see a court case over this, as it is probably the only way we – Joe Public – will ever get to the bottom of it.’

    And for other reasons. Lets get this whole genre of smear and guilt by association out in the open.

  76. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

    Platinum786,

    See the wee greater than and less than signs above the comma and the full stop? Substitute them for the square brackets I’ve used here [blockquote] your quote here [/blockquote].

  77. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:12 pm  

    For once, I’d really like to see a court case over this, as it is probably the only way we – Joe Public – will ever get to the bottom of it.

    Agreed.

  78. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    Thanks Shamit.

  79. fug — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:14 pm  

    he’s landed in the UK. i wonder if the so-called quilliams are going to review his film now?

  80. douglas clark — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:20 pm  

    Shamit @ 74,

    I’m glad you said that. I too have always admired Sids’ posts on here.

  81. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

    awww I’m choking up here…

  82. Jai — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

    I merely pointed out in response to your insistance that Muslims be grateful to Jewish anti-fascists that many of the biggests Islamophobes stirring up hatred against Muslims are Jewish.

    Even if the latter was true, it still doesn’t mean that Muslims (or anyone else from an ethnic or religious minority) shouldn’t be grateful for the efforts of anti-fascists who were Jewish.

    Any more than….oh, let’s pick a random example, Asian Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Christians in the UK shouldn’t appreciate the fact that, over the years, there have also been numerous Muslims in both the public and the private spheres who have done a huge amount in the struggle against racism (which has subsequently benefitted us all), just because there have also been (and still are) Muslims of the Pizza HuT and Anjem Choudhary variety.

    “My agenda is to defend Muslims against Islamophobia and a general one of fairness”

    It’s worth re-iterating that the methods used by Blah to further this alleged agenda include lying and denial if Muslims have ever done anything negative to non-Muslims which he perceives as potentially reflecting badly on them in the eyes of non-Muslims in general, along with exploiting the (actual or presumed) transgressions of other groups as something to triumphantly excuse (or even glorify) similar misdemeanours by those he identifies with.

    Blah appears to be blissfully unaware that, compared to Sid’s more honest and objective efforts, his own communal and unscrupulous behaviour is far more damaging to those he claims to wish to “defend” and certainly far more conducive to fanning the flames of genuine Islamophobia.

  83. Shamit — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:43 pm  

    “Blah appears to be blissfully unaware that, compared to Sid’s more honest and objective efforts, his own communal and unscrupulous behaviour is far more damaging to those he claims to wish to “defend” and certainly far more conducive to fanning the flames of genuine Islamophobia.”

    Very well said Jai

    Sid – Mate keep on writing.

  84. Katy Newton — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:48 pm  

    Sid’s the king, as I said to Melanie Phillips only yesterday. But she was too busy getting off with David Aaronovitch to listen to me, the trollop.

  85. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:54 pm  

    Come on now, lets not get carried away. He raises legitimate questions on how to handle Geert Wilder, but uses unsubstantiated report in a far-right journal which now may be subject to a court case – and suddenly he is Voltaire.

    Get a grip.

  86. Andrew Lockhead — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:54 pm  

    Blah.

    ONE of the protestors was jailed. What about the rest?

  87. Jai — on 12th February, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

    Katy, are you referring to yourself as ‘the trollop’, or are you…..oh, right, I see…..

    Sorry. Lame attempt at lairy humour on a chilly Thursday afternoon.

    Very good to have you back here, as I said before.

  88. Shamit — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:02 pm  

    He is no Voltaire I agree. But in terms of being fair minded and objective he gets my vote compared to you Refresh.

    His posts reflect his values of upholding our common humanity and not judging everything through a narrow religious diktat.

    That’s what makes him and his posts special especially with the very bigoted sentiments some have started bringing to this site regularly. Blah surely represents the later.

  89. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:12 pm  

    heh. i love you guys. except you refresh, you’re just mean and nasty.

  90. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:20 pm  

    Its unfortunate you see it like that Shamit.

    The question still remains, why the 10,000 claim. It can’t surely be forgotten just like that.

    Yes of course you have your arguments with Blah, but it does not advance the premise Sid has used, the source is dubious.

    He over-reached to make a simple point.

  91. Katy Newton — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    *wiggly fingers for Jai*

  92. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

    Sid, that hurts.

  93. Jai — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

    *Lairy wiggly eyebrows for Katy*

  94. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    I’m weeping for the both of us Refresh.

  95. DavidMWW — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    Wilders is to be sent back to Holland.

  96. cjcjc — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

    The question still remains, why the 10,000 claim. It can’t surely be forgotten just like that.

    I do agree with that.
    But Lord “texting while driving” Ahmed I believe has said he is taking legal action against the source (unspecified) of that story.
    Let’s see if he does…

  97. Ravi Naik — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:38 pm  

    The question still remains, why the 10,000 claim. It can’t surely be forgotten just like that.

    You are right about this Refresh.

  98. Ravi Naik — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    Lord “texting while driving” Ahmed

    No – that’s Lord “texting while driving, crashing his car, and killing the driver in the other vehicle” Ahmed.

  99. DavidMWW — on 12th February, 2009 at 4:48 pm  

    Or Lord “Texterminator” Ahmed.

    Listen to the idiot here.

  100. Don — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

    Late to the party again, Wilders seems to be on his way home.

    I had to look Lord Ahmed up. What I read did not exactly fill me with confidence in him. Odd that he should be so indignant that the unquestionably unpleasant bigot Wilders might enter the House when he himself hosted the anti-semite Israel Shamir there.

  101. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:13 pm  

    So true Don. And if anybody needs introduction to Lord Ahmed’s racist guest at the House of Lords.

  102. Ashik — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:52 pm  

    Sid, why is it that you support the entry of this rightwing bigot in order to ‘challenge’ his views when you want the Delwar Hussain Syedi banned outright from the UK. Why not allow Mr. Syedi entry and ‘challenge’ his views. Quite hypocritical of you.

    I say let both odious characters rot outside these sceptered Isles.

  103. Ashik — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:53 pm  

    ‘Common bonds of humanity’ Lol

    Those who advocate common bonds on PP seem to have an aversion to Muslims.

  104. Sid — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:57 pm  

    Because for the same reason why Qaradawi is banned from this country: they both exhort and legitimise violence in the name of Islamist ideology.

    So completely consistent.

  105. damon — on 12th February, 2009 at 6:58 pm  

    It’s omly a wild guess, but perhaps Lord Ahmed didn’t ”threaten” 10,000 Muslims outside parliament if Wilders was let in, but was something (perhaps) that he feared.
    Because of the consequences of how such a demonstration would be viewed, and how that would be harmful to community relations because the reactionary press would have a field day if ”the nutters” (with their beheading placards) turned up.

    If that was the case, even though I don’t support Wilders being banned from the UK, it’s a reasonable point of view to take, if your main concern is not to have Parliament Square looking like it did during the Rushdie fiasco.

  106. dave bones — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

    I cant see why anyone is scared of Wilders,Louis Farrakhan, David Duke, Snoop Dogg or Abu Hamza. Around the world there are people who are actually killing each other, for the rest of us it is good to talk. We might get somewhere. I am sure the Quilliam guys could do something useful debating this guy.

    From what I can see Fitna says more or less the same thing as Jihadi propoganda on the net does. His argument that these views are widespread isn’t backed up by reality is it.

    There certianly wouldn’t be so many big holes in Palestine right now if it was.

  107. Imran Khan — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:14 pm  

    Sid – May I ask you a question. You say Wilders should be allowed to speak freely which is a claim that he himself is making that he is a “champion of free speech”. Yet he wants to use his right to free speech to ban your right and my right to read the Qur’an. So how can you debate with someone like that?

    The point is the man is hypocrytical because he wants to preserve only his version of free speech.

    Wilders is simply looking for publicity and a true champion of free speech would then challenge in every area acroiss Europe. He hasn’t done that. Has Wilders spoken of the right of free speech of Holocaust deniers? I think not. As a champion of free speech why has he failed to do this?

    Thus Wilders is an agitator and not a champion of free speech and its on thsi basis like other agigtators he has been banned.

    At the moment the media is hysterical because Wilders attacks Muslims so he has the right to free speech. But again Qaradawi’s bigotory was banned and the media pushed for it.

    So you see the selective nature of free speech.

    Also I would highlight to you that as long as Lord Ahmed didn’t break the law he is entitled to organise a march to protest against Wilders as that his right to free speech so why are the press making out that is intimidation.

    If UKIP and Wilders had wanted debate and indeed still want one and Quilliam are interested then it is still possible and QF have a million pounds burning a hole in their pocket!

    Quilliam are making noise and if they had wanted a debate they could have had one before now. They are jumping on the bandwagon for media publicity. Wilders was in the UK 2 weeks ago so why didn’t QF organise a debate at that point – why only offer a debate when he was banned!

    Ravi – He wasn’t actually txt’ed when he crashed – he had txt’ed some minutes earlier. His charge is for driving without due care and attention.

    Also the 10,000 claim looks like it may be going to court and thus may not be true.

  108. damon — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:16 pm  

    I guess these people might be talking about this very subject right at this moment.

    http://www.instituteofideas.com/events/fatwatojihad.html

    It would be interesting to hear what Inayat Bunglawala has to say there.

  109. Imran Khan — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:31 pm  

    Also Sid UKIP who invited him here said they want a debate but equally who with? They haven’t invited Muslims to respond. So how can that be a debate when only one side is represented so that is a lecture then!

    This isn’t about free speech – it is hidden behind the guise of free speech.

    Lord Pearson may have got away with this claim if he had actually arranged a debate.

    The intention was never to have a debate and if UKIP are for freedom of speech why haven’t they taken up the cause Holocaust Deniers who are denied free speech?

    This shows the hypocracy of their positions and indeed Wilders.

    BTW Before anyone says I don’t in fact support Holocaust Deniers but thta is a restriction of freedom of speech and the proponents are refusing to take up that banner.

    Free speech is a mantra that can never be achieved. Wilders is interested in celebrity and I’d say if would ahve better for him to come without people complaining and he would have been shown to be the insignificant person he is. He’s been given unnecessary publicity by the Government and Lord Ahmed whcih is what he wants.

  110. Imran Khan — on 12th February, 2009 at 7:37 pm  

    Also one other point Wilders may be democratically elected but not here. No one in the UK elected him so it doesn’t give him an automatic right to come here and spread his nonsense.

    There are many people who are democratically elected who shouldn’t be welcome here. Just because you are elected doesn’t mean you are fit for entry to the UK if you hold views likely to stir community tensions.

    Don’t forget he is facing trial in his own country for inciting hatred and yet people want to allow him in here because they want to allow him freedom of speech. If his own country is putting him on trial for incitement then are people happy for that to occur here?

  111. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:42 pm  

    Jai

    “It’s worth re-iterating that the methods used by Blah to further this alleged agenda include lying and denial if Muslims have ever done anything negative to non-Muslims ”

    Wow its you that is lying
    When did I say that – bring the exact quote if you are truthful

    I never denied Muslims have done anything negative to non-Muslims. I deny that other than those who committed a crime, people of the same religion, colour, nationality can be held individually or collectively guilty for that crime.

    I also wonder what relevance it has when discussing atrocities against Muslims. I suspect it is because you
    would like to use that as a cover for them.

    BTW you never did mention the negative aspects of Sikh Rule in India.

    “which he perceives as potentially reflecting badly on them in the eyes of non-Muslims in general,”

    only bigoted non-Muslims (or Muslims) and I couldnt give a shit what they think

    ” along with exploiting the (actual or presumed) transgressions of other groups as something to triumphantly excuse (or even glorify) similar misdemeanours by those he identifies with.”

    No thats what you are doing.
    Seriously are you mentally ill?
    I said that the Pakistani army behaved like Nazis in Bangladesh and should be held account (something you have never suggested for your group). Then I dared suggest people who murdered Muslims in Gujurat should also be.

    “Blah appears to be blissfully unaware that, compared to Sid’s more honest and objective efforts,”

    Now THATS funny. Sid demonising Muslims is “honest and objective” – maybe in the eyes of a Muslim hater

    ” his own communal and unscrupulous behaviour is far more damaging to those he claims to wish to “defend” and certainly far more conducive to fanning the flames of genuine Islamophobia.”

    Answered above.

    Perhaps you could tell us which actions of your co-religionists you are ashamed of.
    I doubt you will.
    You failed to answer my questin about whetehr there is a conflict in the world today involving Muslims which you think Muslims have justice on their side on

  112. Ashik — on 12th February, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

    Sid:

    ‘they both exhort and legitimise violence in the name of Islamist ideology’.

    I understand that Mr. Wilders wants the Qur’an banned and is facing trial in the Netherlands for hate-speech against Muslims. He is certainly trying to legitimise violence against Muslims just as your bete noir Sayeedi does against your fellow Hindu brothers.

    It seems you only have problems with Muslim demagogues. I am glad the British govt is more even-minded and consistant.

  113. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:13 pm  

    #107 Imran Khan excellent post

    One thing those like Sid and others who deny Wilders hates Muslims (he only wants to make it a criminal offence to possess the book which makes them Muslim)ignore is that when Fitna was first made in Holland the major TV channels Wilders took it to refused to broadcast it . The one channel that offered to broadcast it , in the name of free speech, was a Muslim channel. Wilders disdainfully refused point blank.

    Wilders also campiagns against Muslim rights in Holland and for example protests Muslims using facilities to hold religious programmes.

    Sid sadly is blind to this. He is focussed in his tasbih of Jammat Islami/Islamists, Jammat Islami/Islamists , Jammat Islami/Islamists as if no other injustice exists on the planet. This is because a family member was alleged killed by JI. His is narcisssim rit large; narcissism and revenge as belief and political ideology. And he uses PP as its platform

  114. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:25 pm  

    Heres one in the eye for Sid and the wilders isnt anti-Muslim crowd

    “In a statement following the film’s online release, the board said that Wilders – the leader of the Party for Freedom – was guilty of serious generalizations. “Wilders presented demographics on the increase of Muslims in Europe with pictures from scenes of terrorist attacks, suggesting all Muslims are potential terrorists,” head of the Hague-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel, Dr. Ronny Naftaniel, Saturday told Haaretz. ”
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/969825.html

  115. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:31 pm  

    There is an excellent review aptly titled “Fitna Farce” here


    Finally, the image Wilders used to depict Theo Van Gogh’s killer is actually Moroccan rapper Salah El Din and not the killer, Mohammed Bouyeri. The only thing the two men have in common is that they are bald and bearded.”

    LOL

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/28/thefitnafarce

  116. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 10:54 pm  

    Btw, Blah, Salma Yaqoob, leader of Respect, is generally against the ban on grounds of freedom of speech, the Sun political editor supports the ban… from Question Time on now.

    Does censorship work? How many people have now watched Fitna on YouTube?

  117. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

    Marvin, just saw that.

    I wasn’t surprised by Salma’s stance, but Kelvin was unexpected.

    On the the question of Wildebeest’s intention, its quite clear he wants us to be fighting each other. And ideally throw in a bit of ethnic cleansing.

    It may yet prove to be a boon to UKIP’s electoral chances, they will probably be fighting for some of the BNP vote. For UKIP its been cheap publicity.

    The best point was made by the young woman in the audience who said that we should trust the british public. That the message would be given a cursory glance and given the boot. We agree. The british public does not like to be deceived.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, give them enough rope!

  118. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:04 pm  

    marvin

    “Btw, Blah, Salma Yaqoob, leader of Respect, is generally against the ban on grounds of freedom of speech, the Sun political editor supports the ban.”

    And? When did I say I support a ban on the film (and thers is no such ban-it was shown in the House of Lords twice) or on Wilders (and actually Wilders freedom of speech hasnt been effected; just his freedom of movement). I dont.

    I dont however support double standards – where some hate mongers are banned and others arent, or a fuss is made when some are banned but not others, or when when its Muslims or Islam being attacked its a “freedom of speech” issue but when its Muslims doing the attacking “Its hate speech”

    “Does censorship work? How many people have now watched Fitna on YouTube?”

    No it doesnt. This is something you should ask Jacqui Smith who prevented him coming in. You seem under the (far right) delusion that the Muslim community controls UK immigration policy

    Perhaps you could ask this question to Mr Wilders who wishes to ban the Quran. Im pretty sure far more people are going to read the Quran now for which we can surely be thankful to Mr Wilders.

    I think this whole issue should make decent people reflect on how much hatred there is of Muslims in this land. A non-Muslim Home Secretary bans someone… and people use it demonise Muslims. Essentialy Wilders and his hate mongers have won.

  119. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:07 pm  

    Refresh, in reflection, do you think it was the right decision to effectively attempt to censor Wilberbeast? How many will have googled Fitna in the past couple of days?

  120. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:10 pm  

    Another point is that at the start of the “war of terrorism” many Muslims said this was a war against Islam – the religion. Those who did were dismissed as fantasists, ridiculous etc

    Who after attack after attack on the Muslim religion can deny it now?

  121. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:12 pm  

    Hahaha. Any publicity etc. I disagree; the narrative that Fitna is a repulsive hatefest will backfire, because it simply reflects the Islamists viewpoint. Yes it’s hatefest; Omar Bakri described it as worthy of the mujhadeen!

  122. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:13 pm  

    I am not aware of Geert colluding with dubya, blah.

  123. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:16 pm  

    No reflection needed Marvin. Whatever gives them rope.

    I want everybody to see Fitna.

    The purpose of his visit and his sponsors is really what matters, that is what we will all have to deal with. I am much more comfortable now than I was three years ago, to say the bigotted forces of Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Melanie Philips, Jylands Postland et al, are being rejected wholesale. How do I know? For a start, the US public rejected the neocons and they see that they live in an interconnected world.

  124. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:17 pm  

    Question to Sid and Wilders defenders
    If he isnt anti-Muslim (and is pro-free expression) why has he called for a ban on Muslim women wearing the face veil?

  125. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:20 pm  

    Spencer and Pipes, I would generally agree. Mad Mel, on occasions, yes. But why is Jylands Postland bigotted?

  126. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

    Blah, how do you feel about the Talib enforcement of the burqa?

  127. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:22 pm  

    marvin

    “Hahaha. Any publicity etc. I disagree; the narrative that Fitna is a repulsive hatefest will backfire, because it simply reflects the Islamists viewpoint. Yes it’s hatefest; Omar Bakri described it as worthy of the mujhadeen!”

    Gert Wilders and Omar Bakri. What fine company you keep Marvin. You seem to be saying “Fitna will stir up hatred of Muslims; and it shouldnt be banned” – which means you want to stir up hatred of Muslims. Interesting.

    I wonder how youd react to a clip of salacious quotes from the Talmud and OT intersperst with atrocities committed by Jews? Would you support its screening in the House of Lords? or its maker being allowed into the UK?

    Would you heck

  128. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:25 pm  

    “Blah, how do you feel about the Talib enforcement of the burqa?”

    I dont agree. It should be a free choice to wear or not to wear something your hero Wilders and the Taliban appear to disagree with

    How do you feel about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and decades of slaughter and discrimination they have faced at the hands of a racist aparthied Jewish state Marvin?

  129. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:28 pm  

    Marvin, for Jylands Postland you need to dig for the connections between the guy who instigated the cartoons and his connections with Daniel Pipes.

  130. marvin — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:29 pm  

    Ah the Jews, yes. When did Israel invoke the Talmud to attack Hamas? When has anybody in the past few years justified mass murder on the basis of religion?

  131. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:31 pm  

    ” But why is Jylands Postland bigotted?”

    -It commisioned and published the Muhammed cartoons while refusing to publish carttons against Jesus (pbuh) as it might offend
    - It cried free speech then refused to print the Iranian holocaust cartoons
    - It was a ban of Hitler

    A Jyllands-Posten headline, “Germans must be found right to get rid of the Jews” in 1938, supported the Hitler administration’s looting of Jewish workplaces, destroying graveyards and detaining 26,000 people.

    A few years previously, the paper had published a special supplement apologizing for its publications against democracy.

    The following comment was published on 9 March 1933: “Nobody shall cry in vain. Those voters who had enough of the misuse of parliamentarian democracy gave up on the democratic principles and moved over to Hitler’s side. They will fight against the parliamentary system together with Hitler.”

    Jyllands-Posten, in a commentary dated 17 May 1933, used the expressions “Danes should take the model of the Italians and the Germans. Democracy is a method that can be out into practice during the easy times, but it is a luxury during a crisis periods. What is needed is an iron blow. The Danish people will follow the model of Mussolini and dismiss all the politicians,” and invited the fascist dictatorship to come to Denmark.

    On 1 May 1933, Jyllands-Posten welcomed the imprisonment of labor union leaders and the confiscation of their properties in Germany with the expressions “The problem has now been solved. Jews have been excluded, the labor unions have been forced to join the Nazis, the communists and socialism has been eradicated.”

    The newspaper found the Nazis “using their own methods” to solve “the Jewish problem” as “acceptable.”

    In his book titled, “Anti-Semitism in Denmark,” Christian Lammers from the University of Copenhagen wrote, “After the ‘crystal night’ incidents against the Jews, Germany’s intentions to cut all ties with the Jews should be viewed as the right decision. It should act rightly and properly while realizing this, while setting forth its conditions.”

    http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=2006030607251789

    But perhaps like Mad Mel has forgiven the Hitler supporting Daily Mail now they are anti-Muslim other Muslim haters do likewise with JP

  132. blah — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:34 pm  

    marvin

    “Ah the Jews, yes. When did Israel invoke the Talmud to attack Hamas?”

    The whole basis for Israel taking the Palestinians land (rather than say the Germans) is that it was the land given to them by God in the Torah

    “When has anybody in the past few years justified mass murder on the basis of religion?”

    LOL why restrict to the past few years? Israels holy terror has been going on for 60.

  133. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:35 pm  

    Marvin,

    ‘When did Israel invoke the Talmud to attack Hamas?’ lets not widen the debate.

    Its bad enough trying to get 5 consecutive comments on the same subject.

  134. Refresh — on 12th February, 2009 at 11:45 pm  

    Blah, excellent post on Jyland Postland. Clearly leopards do not change spots.

  135. Jai — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:12 am  

    Blah :

    Wow its you that is lying
    When did I say that

    Your knowledge of the last 1000 years of the subcontinent’s history is staggeringly deficient, for a start. Unless you’ve just been pretending ignorance. The jury’s still out on that.

    I never denied Muslims have done anything negative to non-Muslims.

    Bullshit. See above.

    I also wonder what relevance it has when discussing atrocities against Muslims.

    It is extremely relevant when you start using attacks against Muslims as an opportunity to start screaming “Zionism”, “Nazism” and “Hindutva”, despite the fact that you’ve openly stated that you’re “extremely proud” of the subjugation of non-Muslims in the subcontinent by imperialist Muslims during the region’s medieval period. It’s unbelievable that you don’t have the self-awareness to see the hypocrisy here.

    Even more so when you feign ignorance of the unprovoked aggression, atrocities and brutality that were often involved in order to achieve imperial supremacy during that era (unless you think that what’s recently been happening to the people of Gaza never happened on an even worse scale to the inhabitants of besieged cities and regions on the receiving end of Muslim imperial territorial expansion), along with having the stupidity and insensitivity to actually sneer to the descendents of people who suffered under such tyranny that they should “get over it”. Or are you forgetting your initial smug remark to me on the other thread, despite the fact that at the time I had not even mentioned Muslims or India ?

    It would be like a German person making similar comments to a Jewish person in relation to the Third Reich, or an English person smirking at Africans or Asians in relation to the British Empire.

    It’s also interesting that you still don’t acknowledge the parallels (and injustices) that were involved in the creation of both Israel and Pakistan, since both were formed as religiously-affiliated states and resulted in the displacement of huge numbers of other people who’d already been there for an extremely long time. Unless you think that what happened to the Hindu and Sikh population of what is now Pakistan “wasn’t as bad as what happened to the Palestinians” simply because percentage-wise there were already more Muslims there compared to the proportion of Jewish people at the time in what is now Israel.

    I suspect it is because you
    would like to use that as a cover for them.

    Prove it.

    You’re the one who’s using a catalogue of grievances as a cover for your own bigotry, not to mention showing signs of extreme paranoia in relation to your inappropriate outbursts of “Hindutva fascist”, “anti-Muslim”, etc etc etc.

    You’re also the one who said he was “extremely proud” of Muslim imperial rule in India, whilst refusing to express any regret about the methods that were used to facilitate and expand the empire’s territorial expansion and the atrocities that occurred under some of its rulers, and indeed claiming complete ignorance of the latter despite the fact that these events are extensively documented and extremely well-known. I notice that your response to an extensive list of examples (as requested by you) was complete silence.

    You’re like the Muslim equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Seriously.

    BTW you never did mention the negative aspects of Sikh Rule in India.

    Oh yes I did. Don’t try to play games.

  136. Jai — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:19 am  

    Blah :

    Sid demonising Muslims is “honest and objective”

    But he’s not “demonising Muslims”. Nobody here is — not Sid, not Shamit, and certainly not me. None of us have ever done so. Someone criticising a select group of Muslims is not the same as someone condemning Muslims en masse. The same obviously cannot be said of Geert Wilders, who has a clear and potentially very dangerous agenda towards the followers of Islam full-stop.

    You see, this is the point. And yet, in your paranoid, ego-fuelled mental state, you just don’t get it, do you ?

    only bigoted non-Muslims (or Muslims) and I couldnt give a shit what they think

    Of course, a “bigoted non-Muslim (or Muslim)” is anyone who contradicts your twisted version of history or points out your own hypocrisy and imperialist mindset, or who honestly criticises any aspects of Islam, or who says anything negative about a select group of Muslims which you then decide to extrapolate and interpret as being a generalised condemnation of Muslims en masse. How convenient.

    No thats what you are doing.

    Yet more bullshit. Provide one example where I have stated that it is acceptable to commit atrocities against Muslims, or when I have stated that I am “extremely proud” of the subjugation of any other groups by my own.

    As for your references to “my group” — You don’t even know what “my group” is, do you ?

    Perhaps you could tell us which actions of your co-religionists you are ashamed of. I doubt you will. You failed to answer my questin about whetehr there is a conflict in the world today involving Muslims which you think Muslims have justice on their side on

    And you failed to answer a whole series of questions I asked you in multiple posts throughout that thread after I warned you that the line of argument you were attempting to pursue was about to blow up in your face. We’ve all noticed that your response to my last few posts addressed to you there was silence too.

    I think this whole issue should make decent people reflect on how much hatred there is of Muslims in this land.

    Yes, tragically there is these days, and it’s something that non-Muslim Asians have also had to bear the brunt of, since the rednecks don’t give a damn about differentiating between any of us and are frequently looking for an excuse to act on their existing bigotry towards non-white people (“Paki” has simply been replaced by “Muslim” as an expletive in the eyes of such people).

    As I said before, I wonder if you even realise that your own attitudes and behaviour are playing their part in fuelling Islamophobia in those so inclined amongst this blog’s viewing and commenting audience. Tragically, it’s obvious that you don’t.

  137. Andrew — on 13th February, 2009 at 1:45 am  

    I find it hard to take seriously any article that links to a hard-right nationalist blog like the Brussels Journal!

  138. platinum786 — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

    [blockquote]say something[/blockquote]

  139. platinum786 — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

    [quote]my my, i appear to be rather thick. [/quote]

  140. platinum786 — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:17 pm  

    I should learn to follow instructions

  141. douglas clark — on 13th February, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

    platinum786,

    Yeah! You can do the same thing for italics – just substitute an i for the word blockquote and remember to close it in the same way too. A b gets you bold.

    Now I’d like someone to tell me how they can make a word into a clickable link instead of my horrible http monstrosities!

  142. Imran Khan — on 13th February, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

    Sid – I was sorry to read about the death of your cousin at the hands of terrorists. May God make it easy for your family.

  143. Ashik — on 13th February, 2009 at 10:55 pm  

    Sid lost family to Jamaat?

    This probably explains his fanatic Kolkata Bengali culturo-political leanings and obsessive hatred of Jamaat. Although this certainly does not excuse being blind to others sufferings eg. Palestinian and blind support for extreme rightwing Zionists eg. Wilders, HP etc.

    I’ve think a truth and reconciliation commission needs to be set up to document all the killings during the Liberation War and subsequent political violence. It would give solace to people like Sid and perhaps give them closure.

  144. Ravi Naik — on 14th February, 2009 at 8:50 am  

    It commisioned and published the Muhammed cartoons while refusing to publish carttons against Jesus (pbuh) as it might offend

    Here are the facts: the Muhammed cartoons were published in Denmark, and they even appeared in a Egyptian newspaper. Nothing… no one cared about them. Then, two Danish imans added two extra cartoons, one in which Muhammed was being sodomised by a dog, and another where he was depicted as a pig. And they went to complain in Muslim world that Denmark was attacking Islam. This is when everything erupted.

  145. Jai — on 15th February, 2009 at 2:41 pm  

    Sid, I just wanted to say I’m sorry to hear about your cousin being killed. It must have been a very difficult thing for your family to have to go through such a tragic experience.

  146. blah — on 15th February, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

    Ravi Naik
    “Here are the facts: the Muhammed cartoons were published in Denmark, and they even appeared in a Egyptian newspaper. Nothing… no one cared about them. Then, two Danish imans added two extra cartoons, one in which Muhammed was being sodomised by a dog, and another where he was depicted as a pig. And they went to complain in Muslim world that Denmark was attacking Islam. This is when everything erupted.”

    No these are “the facts” according to Ravi Naik. Im not condoning the violent reaction to the cartoons (though protesting them in other ways was quite legitamate) but the initial 12 cartoons were offensive enough. Danish Muslim organizations pretty much protested them from the outset. Or are you suggesting the cartoon of the “prophet” with a turban in the shape of a bomb wasnt offensive ?

    You are seriously suggesting that people in Muslim nations wouldnt have been able to find out if these extra images had been added.

    In any case Ravi how does that change the undeniable fact that Jylands Posten refused to publish cartoons of Jesus (pbuh) as it may cause offensive, refused to publich holocaust cartoons and have a history of supporting the Nazis? They seem as much advocates of free speech as Geert “Ban the Quran” Wilders.

    You have failed to answer that then gone off on a tangent

  147. Ravi Naik — on 15th February, 2009 at 4:49 pm  

    No these are “the facts” according to Ravi Naik.

    Except that you didn’t actually state which of these facts are inaccurate.

    Or are you suggesting the cartoon of the “prophet” with a turban in the shape of a bomb wasnt offensive ?

    Depends how you interpret it. But the real question is whether we can have a platform where people can express their opinion about Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha… even if it will cause offence because you believe differently. Why your opinion should trump others?

    You are seriously suggesting that people in Muslim nations wouldnt have been able to find out if these extra images had been added.

    Yes, I am seriously saying that. Not only that, they fooled the BBC as well, and other media.

    In any case Ravi how does that change the undeniable fact that Jylands Posten refused to publish cartoons of Jesus (pbuh) as it may cause offensive, refused to publich holocaust cartoons and have a history of supporting the Nazis? They seem as much advocates of free speech as Geert “Ban the Quran” Wilders.

    That’s irrelevant, including your pathetic attempt of going as back as 60 years ago. I do not consider them as advocates of free speech, and I do not think the cartoons are tasteless. And I believe the sneaky imams added two tasteless pictures in their dossier precisely because they felt that the original cartoons were not offensive enough.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.