Geert Wilders banned from UK
He is a democratically-elected citizen of the European Union, and thereby entitled – as are all citizens of the EU – to free movement within and across member states. He has broken no law in the Netherlands, in the UK, or even in the EU. He simply made a film which was critical of aspects of Islam Jihadism, and for that, he is deprived of his rights as a citizen of the EU. The United Kingdom government has refused him entry to the UK because his views ‘threaten community harmony and therefore public security’. The Government invoked Article 19 of the 2006 Immigration Regulations, which permit the Home Office to ban a person from the United Kingdom ‘if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’.
Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban, saying he ‘deeply regretted’ that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred access. He said: "It is disgraceful that a Dutch parliamentarian should be refused entrance to an EU country."
Indeed it is. It establishes that the Jihadis govern Britian more than either the governments of the UK or the EU. For fear of civil unrest, liberty is diminished; for fear of Lord Ahmed’s 10,000 descending upon Parliament, the truth may not be preached.
Mr Wilders called the Government's decision ‘cowardly’ and has vowed to defy it. It is not immediately clear how he intends to do this. He has said: "Let them try to detain me," indicating that he intends to attempt entry, and expects to be arrested. According to The Daily Telegraph, Mr Wilders said: "I shall probably go to Britain anyway on Thursday. Let us see if they put me in handcuffs on arrival. It is an unbelievable decision made by a group of cowards."
By way of explanation for the ban, the Home Office said it ‘opposes extremism in all its forms’ and would work to ‘stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country’.
Is it extremist to oppose extremism? Is it extremist to expose Islamism? Is it extremist to defend freedom, demand justice or uphold liberty?
And if they wish to stop those who spread extremism and hatred, why do they grant free access to the likes of radical Islamic cleric Sheikh Al Yusuf Qaradawi, who appears to advocate the murder of homosexuals and Israeli civilians and the beating-up of women? Is this not a ‘violent message’ which the Home Office ought to stop? And why do they permit anti-Semites in the House of Lords? They let in Egyptian Abu Hamza – a brutal apologist for extremism and violence, yet bar Geert Wilders for daring to criticise the hatred and bile Hamza spouts. The Home Office is concerned to limit ‘racism’, but manifests a de facto racism against Jews and white Christians.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, one of the Peers who invited Mr Wilders to the House of Lords, called the Government’s decision ‘weak and unacceptable in the extreme’.
In the extreme?
Should the Home office not be opposing itself?
As far as Cranmer is aware, Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox intend to proceed with their showing of Fitna on Thursday. Extra security has been ordered. Lord Pearson had issued a press release revealing that the postponed screening of the film was nothing to do with Lords Ahmed’s claims in the Pakistan press that the event had been cancelled in response to his and other Muslim leaders’ threats, which apparently represented a ‘victory for the Muslim community’. Lord Pearson states that the postponement was in order to ‘allow time for clarification on issues concerning freedom of speech’.
Baroness Cox has explained that ‘the original postponement occurred as a result of the organisers finding out that Mr Wilders had previously advocated banning the Qur’an, and that therefore “it seemed then a little inconsistent” to give him a platform’.
The disclosure of Lord Ahmed’s ‘threat’ apparently came after the decision to postpone.
But the reality is that Lord Ahmed has his victory. As the Dutch courts intend to prosecute a Dutch lawmaker for daring to criticise Islam (which is deemed to be racist and incitement to hatred), the British government limits freedom of expression and curtails participation in public debate.
All of which further establishes that the UK’s blasphemy laws have not been abolished; merely amended to suit the predominant religio-political force. You can criticise Christianity, denigrate the Bible or demean Jesus to your heart’s content, for Christians pose no threat to the Queen’s Peace. But Allah forbid that you criticise Islam, question the Qur’an or defame Mohammed, for to do so would certainly imperil the peace and security of the Realm.