So, will Geert Wilders be banned from the UK?


by Sunny
16th July, 2010 at 3:35 pm    

The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders has started a new campaign. The main aim of his campaign is to outlaw immigration from Islamic countries to the west.

He plans to tour five countries in addition to the UK.
Last year Wilders unveiled a 10 point plan to save the West. Some of those were:

- Stop cultural relativism. We need an article in our constitutions that lays down that we have a Jewish-Christian and humanism culture.
- Stop pretending that Islam is a religion. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. In other words, the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.
- Stop mass immigration by people from Muslim countries.
- Encourage voluntary repatriation.
- Have every member of a non-Western minority sign a legally binding contract of assimilation.

I bet Geert Wilders will not be banned from coming to the UK. And he shouldn’t be, because we must believe in free speech and the right for fascists to say inflammatory things.

But I also predict that the sorry shower of idiots who were vociferously calling for the Islamic hate-preacher Zakir Naik to be banned from the UK will be quiet on Geert Wilders. It’s one rule for Muslims and another one for non-Muslims isn’t it? Just the way Wilders would like it, in fact.

Relatedly, you may recall that Douglas Murray from the Centre for Social Cohesion has repeatedly written defending Wilders. In an article for ConservativeHome he said Wilders attacked Islam, not Muslims. Does he still believe that, I wonder?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: EDL,Race politics






25 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: So, who is going to argue for Geert Wilders to be banned from the UK? http://bit.ly/bdZ5kn




  1. Page van der Linden — on 16th July, 2010 at 3:39 pm  

    Every time Wilders is banned from someplace, etc., it just gives him more attention, which he LOVES. The less he can play the victim, the better.

  2. Tim Footman — on 16th July, 2010 at 3:43 pm  

    I think they should both be allowed into the country. But they have to sit next to each other on the plane. And share a hotel room. Better still, a bed. And the whole thing is filmed. By Louis Theroux.

    If nothing else, we’ll see how long Wilders takes to get his hair look that way.

  3. Carl Gardner — on 16th July, 2010 at 3:53 pm  

    I agree with you about Wilders. Excluding him from the UK was unlawful – and I was surprised Liberty made no criticism of it. It was a much more obvious case of restricting free speech than that of Jon Gaunt.

    But is Zakir Naik really in the same category as Wilders? I’m not sure he is. First, Wilders has a prima facie right to come here, as an EU citizen, that non-EU citizens don’t have. More importantly, if it’s true that Zakir Naik has expressed the view that “every Muslim should be a terrorist” -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik#2010_exclusion_from_the_UK_and_Canada

    - then the cases are different in substance, too. I don’t think Wilders has ever supported or justified violence, has he?

  4. Lydia Forsyth — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:00 pm  

    Islamism is changing the face of Europe. Unfortunately, not for the better. We have loss much of our freedoms due to Islam and it is affecting us on a daily basis. Perhaps if so many didn’t bloody moan for their own way so much, people would be a little more tolerant.

    I, for one, will be joining Geert Wilders Campaign!

    Muslims should either conform or move to a country which better reflects their laws, politics, dress and religion. They have made it pretty obvious they don’t want to integrate.

  5. Sunny — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:00 pm  

    Carl, what was the full line of that sentence?

    Also, the line seems to be that non-citizens should not have automatic right to come here. What they’re saying is only non-EU people don’t have that right?

    so if Naik was from France, it’s ok?

    Page – oh I agree. I’m not in favour of banning him either.

  6. BenSix — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:10 pm  

    I think they should both be allowed into the country. But they have to sit next to each other on the plane. And share a hotel room. Better still, a bed. And the whole thing is filmed. By Louis Theroux.

    Ahaha! Personally, I’m up for a special Come Dine With Me: Wilders and Naik, plus a Hindu nationalist, a member of Aleph and Rowan Williams.

    Coming up! Zakir’s unhappy!

    Geert claims his choice of pork was accidental accident, but…

  7. Carl Gardner — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:31 pm  

    I don’t know the end of the sentence, Sunny. I don’t know whether Zakir Naik said “all Muslims should be terrorists” at all, or whether he went on to say anything that puts that quote in another light. By all means enlighten me!

    The point isn’t whether I think EU citizens should have a special right of entry to the UK, and that others shouldn’t. My point is that EU citizens do have that right, and others don’t. The legal test for excluding Wilders is higher than for excluding a non-EU citizen. He has to be “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”. It was always obvious Wilders didn’t meet that test; and yes, I do think it’d make a difference if Zakir Naik were French.

    All I’m saying is that the legal background is part of the reason for thinking these cases aren’t equivalent. But as I said, more important is that it appears one of them may have supported or justified violence, while the other didn’t. If I’m wrong, and Zakir Naik never has justified violence, I’m happy to be corrected.

  8. BenSix — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:42 pm  

    I’m no expert on Naik, but if “justif[ying] violence” is enough to render one verboten should I leave the country? After all, I’m not – as yet – a pacifist.

  9. boyo — on 16th July, 2010 at 4:44 pm  
  10. Kulvinder — on 16th July, 2010 at 5:19 pm  

    and yes, I do think it’d make a difference if Zakir Naik were French.

    Which is why discussions juxtaposing ‘freedom of speech’ and the various clauses and/or agreements the UK may have with different countries is mute.

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘supporting violence’; let alone ‘justifying violence’ (for the reasons ben pointed rightly out). I can’t recall any laws talking about ‘supporting’, there was obviously a change from ‘inciting’ to encouraging or assisting an offence.

    I suppose its possible that Zakir Naik (who is incidentally an idiot) would have come to the UK only to encourage others to break the law but it would seem an odd thing to do; especially as he hasn’t acted in that manner in the past when visiting the uk.

    He wasn’t let in this time because it wasn’t politically expedient for a new government to let him in. The underlying argument behind sunny’s post, and many similar ones elsewhere, is one of principle; it isn’t a debate about law.

  11. Carl Gardner — on 16th July, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    I’ve been looking at this YouTube video, which may be relevant (from 5 minutes on):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q_Nu1XVWDY

    He says Muslims should be terrorists, but goes on to explain that a Muslim should only be a terrorist in relation to “anti-social elements”, not in relation to innocent people. He goes on to stress how “terrorism” is a relative concept and that how you view the political background is the key, citing Indian opposition to British rule.

    I’m not sure what he’s saying, really. He seems to be to be deliberately ambiguous. But it seems to me a reasonable inference from his words is that he thinks if foreigners interfere in Muslim countries, Muslims who object should indeed use terror.

  12. Carl Gardner — on 16th July, 2010 at 5:37 pm  

    Kulvinder, I’m not trying to make it about law. I’ve said twice that the substance of what the two men have said and done that’s more important.

    But Sunny implied the cases are equivalent, and that it’s one rule for Muslims, and another for everyone else.

    I think it’s legitimate to point out in response that it is indeed one rule for one category and another rule for another. The categories, though, are EU citizens and others.

  13. Marcus G — on 16th July, 2010 at 5:48 pm  

    Countries ought to be selfish about who they allow to arrive and become citizens. Although it is difficult to view Muslims as a homogeneous group since they are coming from different parts of the world and have different interpretations of their religion.

    If we want to generalise, there is no doubt that a large percentage of Muslims fail to assimilate into western countries. Rather than giving up backward practices, they continue in the host country. Examples of this include honour killings and dressing women up as letter boxes.

    No other immigrant group has members who have blown up planes, trains or travelled to other countries for terrorist training an Jihad.

    On this evidence Geert Wilder is correct, and no amount of diversity training will change this.

  14. joe90 — on 16th July, 2010 at 6:38 pm  

    Wilders is a vile creature and a hypocrite he represents the so called freedom party which is a racist party anti foreigner and is famous for wanting to ban muslim clothing the koran, mosques and anything related to islam. Correctly the article points out the usual suspects here in the uk, extremists on the right wing such as the comical douglas murray defend this nutter under the guise of free speech well you can’t have it both ways you want racist speakers in but muslim speakers out?

  15. DF — on 17th July, 2010 at 2:14 am  

    Fred Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians and they have also been refused entry to the UK.

    I think this site is obsessed with Muslims.

    BTW Naik said…. “Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … we don’t know. But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. I read the newspaper. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist”

    And here he is demonstrating his understanding of the meaning of the word ‘terrorist’ (from about 4:30 on):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6R-9MfSVA4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Fso5GV7eA

  16. ¬AFAR — on 17th July, 2010 at 2:49 pm  

    “Idiots” are people who demonstrate that they cannot or will not (for whatever reason) distinguish between Islam and Islamists. That would seem to include Wilders and … er… *you*, Sunny.

  17. damon — on 17th July, 2010 at 5:05 pm  

    Carl Gardiner @12

    But Sunny implied the cases are equivalent, and that it’s one rule for Muslims, and another for everyone else.

    I think it’s legitimate to point out in response that it is indeed one rule for one category and another rule for another. The categories, though, are EU citizens and others.

    That’s the point here I think.

    Kulvinder calls the guy an idiot.
    Should we not be more concerned about the thousands of people who would have come to see him speak?
    Why would so many people go and see an idiot at some place like Wembley Arena or in Birmingham?

    It’s been a fun few days in Belfast btw.
    http://www.politics.ie/northern-ireland/133589-would-blanket-ban-parades-work-9.html

  18. Refresh — on 17th July, 2010 at 5:06 pm  

    Wilders is no threat to muslims. None whatsoever. But he will take down what he pretends to defend – a bit like Samson.

  19. TORY — on 18th July, 2010 at 4:52 pm  

    Its like comparing apples and pears though. If Sunny can quote us one implicit threat of violence by Wilder’s then the comparison is apt. If Sunny can show us some evidence that Wilder’s condones terrorism then he will have a fair point.

    The problem is he cant.

    On June 11, 2010 Naik was found to condone terrorism by the UK Home secretary, Theresa May. In a YouTube video, which was according the IRF recorded in Singapore in 1996[39] Naik stated that:

    “If he Osama bin Laden is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. If he is terrorizing the terrorists, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

    There you go Sunny, the Home Office has made the distinction clear for you.

    One is a scumbag supporter of terrorism.

    The other is member of parliament who says things yourself and many others simply don’t like.

    The whole incitement to violence thing is hard to understand i know.

  20. Golam Murtaza — on 19th July, 2010 at 1:27 pm  

    Wilders is a nasty piece of work. He and his kind will not be happy until Britain and Europe see violent pogroms against all Muslims.

  21. Bill — on 19th July, 2010 at 10:46 pm  

    … America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist …

    If only Jai would make his similar points as succinctly as that.

  22. Slalom — on 20th July, 2010 at 5:37 pm  

    “the line seems to be that non-citizens should not have automatic right to come here.”

    They don’t have that automatic right and they shouldn’t have it.

    “What they’re saying is only non-EU people don’t have that right?”

    No they are not. EU citizens are currently normally allowed in without a VISA. Exceptions can be made and it is not an ‘automatic right’. nor should they have such a right.

    A central point of national sovereignty is the right to control whom you allow into the country. It’s the same principle by extension as you having the right to control whom you allow into your home.

    Neither Wilders nor Naik have the automatic natural right as individuals to enter, although in the case of elected politicans there is a case for allowing them in – but also still for excluding them despite this.

    In practise, as we know many countries have mutual arrangements regarding entry of citizens to each others country. That is a practical matter and quite different from some putative ‘automatic right’, which no one has and no one should have.

  23. Slalom — on 20th July, 2010 at 5:39 pm  

    Apologies for typing ‘visa’ in block caps. I have just noticed it, it was quite unintentional and not meant signify talking loudly as if you didn’t understand etc.

  24. Jai — on 21st July, 2010 at 10:13 am  

    … America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist …

    If only Jai would make his similar points as succinctly as that.

    Another little gem from the Glenn Beck School of Cognitive Dissonance.

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.