Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Geert Wilders: Statement by Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson

Cranmer has received the following press statement from The Rt. Hon. Professor The Baroness Cox, of Queensbury, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, joint sponsors of the screening of Fitna and the conference at the House of Lords entitled 'The Koran and Freedom of Speech':

"The Koran and Freedom of Speech"

Her Majesty's Government bans Geert Wilders from the United Kingdom.

Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said "Ban the Bible"?

Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement.

We do not agree with Geert Wilders that the Koran should be banned – even in Holland where 'Mein Kampf' is banned. We don't want it banned but discussed – particularly by the majority Muslim community; and specifically as to whether it may promote or justify - or has promoted or justified - violence. We are therefore promoting freedom of speech.

Geert Wilder's 'Fitna' film (available on the web) is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence.

They react in fury and menace to our intention to show the film and have boasted that their threats of aggressive demonstrations prevented its previous showing in the Mother of Parliaments. This was not the case – the event was postponed to clarify issues of freedom of speech. The threat of intimidation in fact increases the justification for the film to be shown and discussed in Parliament and by the British and international press.

Indeed, any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film’s message and the need for it to be shown.

The subsequent action by the Home Office to try to deter Mr Wilders from coming to the UK has, we believe, been rightly condemned by the Dutch foreign minister, and is a further example of the appeasement policies of the British government in giving in to the threats of militant Islam.

We intend to show and discuss the film with members of the British Parliament and the press as previously indicated, with or without Mr Wilders.


Anonymous North Northwester said...

If any of Your Eminence's many readers knows of campaigns (other than the one to finance his defence against the domestic law-suit) to protect his freedom of speech and promote his work, I would like them to let me know so that I can publicise them here:

This insult to our people and our liberties must not be allowed to continue unchallenged.

Thank you for your indulgence.

11 February 2009 at 19:04  
Anonymous indigochild said...

You pathetic specimens. The Dutch have banned Mein Kampf, which I have to agree is intolerable waffle of the highest order, which I attempted to read in my teens. But they don't get it do they? Then there is this nonsense about not being able to debate how many Jews were gased by the Nazis, as if any one really cares except the haters. Let the loonies talk about whatever they wish.

If you want free speech then it has to be precisely that, other wise shut your verminous mouths and have another spoonful of your excrement.

Your incessant whining is becoming intolerable. Your pathetic religions are becoming too much for me. You vile and despicable creatures have have reached a zenith at long last. What in the name of your hateful God do think will be achieved by a few decadent Lords waxing lyrical about some Dutch misanthrope? You really are the saddest and most pathetic excuse for intelligent life forms that the universe has ever had the misfortune to witness.

11 February 2009 at 19:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Indigochild, Havent`t the men in white coats caught you yet!

11 February 2009 at 19:14  
Anonymous not a machine said...

well yes , the lords and commons have job to address opinions , to examine and question them .

Geert Wilders is showing us that certain aspects and splinters of islam have a violent intention as instructed in the quoran .

why arent muslims rallying to remove the offensive scripts, so as to be the peaceful religion they say they are instead of wanting to surpress what mr wilders has to say.

i just dont see why they cant say , well mr wilders has a point "we have terrorists that murder innocent people in the name of islam we want to remove the dangerous articles from the quoran"

if the lords want an answer they have to see the views .

tried twice to discuss with indigolaughingmyarse off , pointless just troll posting ,

11 February 2009 at 19:28  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace

I listened to Lords Ahmed and Pearson being interviewed at lunchtime today on the wireless.

I thought Ahmed was almost incoherent, truly illogical, and hysterical. Pearson put up a decent case and argued reasonably. Ahmed failed entirely to address any of his points.

While we continue to allow hysterical emotion to dictate policy and statute we will continue to undermine democracy. It is time that people like Ahmed learned to act in a civilised manner. It is time for reason and logic to be returned to their rightful place.

11 February 2009 at 19:55  
Anonymous len said...

I feel that this is a step forward in restoring confidence in the parliamentary process.
If radical Islamists are using the Quaran as a blueprint for their behavior then to debate this matter is important for all concerned.
Appeasement never works with radicals it is only seen as weakness and encourages further action.

11 February 2009 at 19:59  
Blogger Dr.D said...

England is truly lost! You have given away the store. You have dithered to the point where you have nothing at all left. How sad.

11 February 2009 at 20:37  
Blogger Dr.D said...

England is truly lost! You have given away the store. You have dithered to the point where you have nothing at all left. How sad.

11 February 2009 at 20:38  
Blogger Microcosm said...

Sounds promising your Grace, good to see there are those with true grit amongst the Establishment at this moment in time, Nobility and Aristocracy are pointless unless they step up to the mark. I can understand those who draw parallels between Mein Kampf or holocaust revisionists, after all free speech and debate must be just that, but lets not forget Dr Toben was released and Britain is not Europe.

There are the free speech two locked up in the United States though, after having to flee the very Government our Nobles now bring into question.

It will be interesting to see if their stand for free speech is now just an Islamic issue or a geniune free speech and expression issue.

I applaud their stand though!

11 February 2009 at 20:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched More4 news at 8pm. Baroness Cox and the odious mr ahmed were interviewed.

She came across very well and managed to make the relevant points, despite the whole item being the usual left-wing channel 4 biase. ahmed is a slimy little git. I just hope he's jailed soon for his criminal behaviour - hasn't he killed someone in a road accident?

11 February 2009 at 21:05  
Anonymous Shaveh-headed tattooed knuckledragger. said...

What has David Cameron (pbuh) got to say about this ban?

The silence of the Tory party is deafening.

11 February 2009 at 21:43  
Blogger Ayrdale said...

...indeed, watching from afar I would expected the Opposition, the Civil Liberties union, Amnesty International and every newspaper to be denouncing Wilders banning as an abomination, and a most frightening precedent.
Anything from The Defender of the Faith would be welcome also...

11 February 2009 at 21:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unsworth said....

'I thought Ahmed was almost incoherent, truly illogical, and hysterical.'


Could really be any Labour MP or peer then.

11 February 2009 at 22:01  
Anonymous indigocommunity said...

Free speech is the least of your worries. We have a consensus among our finest that your mad men are going to eventually instigate a cull. It has been seen. This is not in our interests any more than it is yours.

11 February 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous Shaven-headed tattooed knuckledragger said...


The reason that this dispute has woken the British people is because it's a sudden change rather than a gradual, almost imperceptible attrition. If you look at the way that 'enrichment' has been implemented up to now, it has been a gradual destruction of our way of life - a death by a thousand cuts.

Each cut has been a minor annoyance, but not enough to bring people out on the streets.

- Nobody's actually rioted about the banning of 'Three Little Pigs' or crucifixes.

- People haven't been willing to die in a ditch about the gradual extension of the definition of Politically Incorrect speech.

- Nobody has taken to the barricades when the Union Jack and Flag of St George were deemed 'inappropriate'.

- Families have just had to grin and bear it when they've been pushed to the back of housing waiting-lists to make way for vibrant fast-breeders and their multiple wives.

More here .

11 February 2009 at 22:09  
Anonymous rebellious mouse said...

Oh shaven-headed one:
And they never even noticed when the unelected Broon one gave the country away....

Btw: How much intimidation is too much intimidation?

Anyway, I'm glad the HoL's at least made a statement. That forces the matter on the media, who have to admit something's happening; otherwise the rest of the world will blow their cover as well....

I still think the HoL should bring Wilders in and let us indigenes give him a clamorous welcome!!!

And if the so-called government and the equally so-called opposition are so scared of civil unrest - and so stupid that they can't see they've caused it - then let them go sidling through the flaming tunnel and hide with the enemy. Good riddance.

11 February 2009 at 22:40  
Anonymous woman on a raft said...

Head of Legal has written two short posts (1 and 2) which explain the law and why he thinks Straw has read it wrong.

11 February 2009 at 22:55  
Blogger Dissenter said...

the Koran should no more be banned that Mein Kampf or Origin of Species. They should be studied so that they can be understood and responded to.

11 February 2009 at 23:04  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Geert Wilder's 'Fitna' film (available on the web) is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence.

TRUE, but it is dangerous propaganda all the same. It should not be banned but it should also be seen for what it most surly is. Which is high class disinformation, mixed with truth half truth and highly divisive and nasty thinking.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.
Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS. (Prime Minister 1979-1990)

( ALSO Atlas Shrugged Prime self confessed fool FEB 2009 )


We all know what is good and what is evil, in our heart of hearts. Do we not?

Margaret Thatcher knew the difference, which is why the Bilderbergers got shot of her, once she had outlived her usefulness to them. This is not conspiracy theory. MT is quoted as saying so herself.

When asked if she was sad that the Bilderbergers had finally done for her, she replied.

"I am proud that I resisted them. I would have considered any British Prime Minister that submitted their country willingly to a European dictatorship, as devoutly EVIL." or words very much to that effect.

There is evil in all religions colours and creeds. As there is also good and humane thinking and actions.

No one and no ones religion has a monopoly on good or on evil.

Mankind was given the power to choose. He can not choose well surrounded in MSM dishonestly which only adds to our ignorance. The internet is not much better and getting worse by the day.

However the BBC would seek to choose what is good or bad for us. Which is by definition not just bad, but EVIL at play.

Evil takes sides. Evil lies. Evil hinds truth. Evil dictates. Evil manipulates. Evil divides. Evil subverts. IN short EVIL IS THE BBC, at all times and without exception.

Only parents have the god given right to choose for their children.

The BBC is not our parents, and therefore must ultimately be destroyed before it destroys us.

Blessed are the peacemakers. Cursed forever, are the BBC and The MSM.

11 February 2009 at 23:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tip my hat to the Rt. Hon. Professor The Baroness Cox, of Queensbury, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
They are evidence that the Peers of Realm are not all reverting to invertebracy.

They will be opposed to their front by the mad mullahs. That has taken as a matter of course by generations of anglo-saxons from The Khyber to the Sudan and a multitude of other mosque riddled towns.
They will be assaulted to their flanks and rear by the craven of their own kind.

They will not back down because they are worthy of the title Noble, and they will find support from the likes of me in the former dominions.

Queensbury Rules!

12 February 2009 at 02:03  
Anonymous Your Grace said...

Sooner or later We HAVE to make a stand

12 February 2009 at 03:46  
Anonymous For Dummies said...

The New World Order for Dummies
The Home Secretary's ID Card Agenda Revealed

12 February 2009 at 04:17  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

To Atlas Shrugged: I've seen Fitna. I would be interested to learn which bits are true and which are half true. I agree the film is nasty (actually I would describe the contents as ugly and hateful) but I have to point out, and I might be being a little controversial here, the film couldn't have been made without those taking starring roles.

12 February 2009 at 09:40  
Blogger John said...

Note that the LibDems no longer believe in freedom of speech.

Quote from the BBC website.

Chris Huhne, Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said he had watched the film, which he called "revolting", and backed the ban.

"Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it," he said.

"But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group."

"Likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group" is a very elastic concept.

One rather suspects that if the LibDems were in power, Peter Akinola would not be allowed into Britain.

12 February 2009 at 10:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don`t think the Quaran should be banned I think it should be compulsory reading for everyone.
Then we would know exactly what we were dealing with!

12 February 2009 at 10:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is the organisation Liberty in this controversy?

12 February 2009 at 13:32  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

Liberty, or at least one if it's spokespeople, waxed apoplectic about the word golliwog. Heavens knows (can I still say that?) what they would possibly gain from defending the free speech of some Islam denying foreign parliamentarian.

Oh wait, Jacqui has already done the job for them, hasn't she...

12 February 2009 at 13:51  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Anon @ 10:36 - Seconded. Same with marx et al. Problems ensue not from the availability, but from rendcering the text orthodox as 'ideology'.

12 February 2009 at 13:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wilders now at Heathrow

12 February 2009 at 14:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope that if they do ban "freedome of speech" (Dutch politicians name irrelevant) that it ha sfar reaching consequences for all those that did not speak up in favour of it's (freedom of speech)arrival at LHR.

12 February 2009 at 15:02  
Anonymous Let me Get this right said...

Wilders film tries to warn us about Islamic Clerics calling for death to the Kuffar, we should convert or be beheaded and Miliband, says Wilders in hateful.

Actually what is happening, the Marxists, want us under the dual jackboot of a police state and sharia law.
they dont want wilders here telling us the truth.

Two MEP's have said we should be nice to Muslims so that when they become the Majority, they will be nikce to us.
The Popes aid has said that 'Attempts to Islamify the West cannot be denied'
The EU wants us under Sharia LAw as an Extra Layer of Repression, under the dual Jackboot of a False Flag Created
Police state and Sharia Law

This is not the First time, Tyrannical Despots have wanted this for Europe.

Napoleon's vision of a United Europe's constitution based on the Koran and Hitler's admiration for Islam.

Napoleon stated, "I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness."
Remember that Napoleon was the architect of the United States of Europe.
Hitler also tried to unify Europe and was a great admirer of Islam, "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143) "

Sorry people, the evidence is not undeniable, Westminster wants your children under the dual Jackboot of a False Flag created Police state and Sharia Law.
Westminster wants us under Sharia Law, Decision time people

12 February 2009 at 15:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was rather taken by some of the choicer comments left for our public perusal by our (technical) communicant indigochild, as above, as it does rather confirm what a number of contributors have been suggesting for some time, namely, that islam isn't exactly all sweetness and light. Wheel 'em in, son, I say....and let's have many more of your views, the more the merrier, if you please, because such views both merit and deserve as wide an audience as possible.

Preferably for the BBC and the Home Office to see, too (although I fear that both bodies would promptly consign any such writings into the "too difficult" category, or, of course, to claim that they were actually written by the BNP in order to promote cultural discord against peace-loving muslims - and if that's not deliciously ironic I don't know what is.)

I'm assuming indigochild to be of that ever-so peaceful persuasion, of course, since one of his more recent postings made some rather strong references to Allah being superior to 'the weak Christian God' (sic). (The comment in question I now can't find, it may be that His Grace has moderated it) This curious distinction in indigochild's mind I do find odd, since it is my understanding that Allah,(Koran) J*HW*Y, (OT) and the Lord God (NT) are, actually, all one and the same. Maybe indigochild doesn't know this, of course....or maybe, just possibly, he doesn't want to know? An inconvenient truth, perhaps....or maybe the notion that Allah is also the God of the despised kuff is something he just can't cope with.

12 February 2009 at 16:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said "Ban the Bible"?"

Yes, some other bunch of self-appointed guardians would have jumped up and said teh hsitoric Christian nature of the Uk was being eroded.

This is a childish diversion and a cheap attempt to introduce this man's views under the sham of "free speech".

Better ask - "would this have happened if a renowned Maoist has arrived to tell us how we should ban all religious works and get back to work?"
Would their Noble Lord and Lady-ships have been running to Heathrow then, with UKIP MEPs in tow?

12 February 2009 at 16:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


This is a traditionally Christian country. However, it is no longer a free country - it is colonized by the followers of Anti-Christ.

So they probably will feel free to ban the Bible very soon. And all the English Literature that, with the Good Book, formed our very great Culture.

I'm beginning to agree with the indigo legion on one or two points about the present state of the erstwhile british backbone.

wv: phool - you got it.

12 February 2009 at 19:07  
Anonymous A. Nony Mous said...

Pot, kettle, black? From Lord Ahmed's wikipage

"On 23 February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. On the 22 March, Stephen Pollard, in a guest editorial appearing in the Times, lambasted the event. In his piece entitled 'Lord Ahmed's Unwelcome Guest', Pollard opines that Shamir "is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.” Pollard goes on to characterize the speech entitled 'Jews and Empire’ as containing anti-Semitic references such as "Jews control ... a big share of mass media"; 'the Jewish supremacy drive' as the one reason for wars in the Middle East, and that 'Jews love Empire'. Shamir also suggested that the large Muslim population in Britain was important to turn the tide of 'Judaic Values' in Britain. Lord Ahmed refused to comment on the remarks of Shamir."

So, for him to promote this sort of thing is ok, but if anyone wants to say something against what he likes it should be illegal.

I too am looking forward to seeing this odious creature spend time behind bars.

12 February 2009 at 20:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In media appearances:

Foreign Secretary David Milliband condemns the Wilders film Fitna as promoting hatred and violence towards Islam.

Member of Parliament Keith Vaz supports the ban on entry to the UK by Wilders and also condemns the film as promoting hate and violence.

When asked by their interviewers if they have seen the film both answer that they have not!

How many other condemners of Mr Wilders as a man promoting hatred of and encouraging violence towards Muslims have not seen the film complained of and are ignorant of what his actual arguments on the issues are?

12 February 2009 at 23:43  
Anonymous some bloke said...

When interviewed on Radio 4 ( 13.30pm Weds ) why did Lord Pearson of Rannoch not respond to Ahmeds claim that " when they last tried to show FITNA I recieved hundreds or thousands of threateneing e-mails which is proof of how dangerous Geert Wilders is " with the fact that those e-mails were in response to Ahmeds threat to invade Parliament with "10,000" Islamists ?

I have seen the film which is indeed revolting but it is mostly made up of propaganda clips made by extremist Muslims who thus condemn themselves.

13 February 2009 at 04:50  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

I have seen the film which is indeed revolting but it is mostly made up of propaganda clips made by extremist Muslims who thus condemn themselves.

I would not call Fitna revolting, propaganda, yes.

However how can we stop FASCISM/NAZISM of any kind when people that say they want to stop same, are indeed victimized by our very own fascist government and media?

Proper debate is the way a free country must operate, and be seen to be doing so.

Fitna's propaganda in some respects is mild in comparison with the BBC's victimization of The State of Israeli and its innocent citizens.

Our own government is fighting a war in the middle east based almost entirely on the ideas promoted within this short film.

The utter hypocracy of The BBC and our own government is truly astounding.

As for what is true and what is not true.

It all rather depends on WHO exactly is driving this whole agenda. This of course was never even mentioned in the film. If you believe, as I do, that elements within our own world establishment are pulling ALL the important strings. Then it could be argued that everything concerning this issue is a half truth at best.

If propaganda was not ever true or mainly true, it would be perfectly useless and therefore pointless.

13 February 2009 at 14:21  
Blogger Mohamed said...

What does Koran say about Torah and Gospel

20 February 2009 at 00:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older