Dutch Mp Sent Home

[Monsta®]

mr wilder who only wanted to debate the matter has been banned from entering the uk why? if this had been a muslim they there would have been riots, burning the union jack and threats of bombs by extremists! and the government would have "turned a blind eye" saying its a matter of free speech! this is a sad sad country

watch the film it makes sense and its not racist only highlighting the ways of extremists!

[Hamburger Pimp]

A sensible decision to exclude an attention-seeking bigoted idiot.

*looks up*

We have enough of those as it is.

[threegee]

A sensible decision to exclude an attention-seeking bigoted idiot.

But those sensible decisions don't extend to excluding those who don't accept that everyone should have a right to a differing view, and demand that their culture should subvert our culture in our country?

I think monsta is on about double standards. If this guy is highlighting those double standards then it's his fault and not ours? He's simply a foreign troublemaker then? What a gift to the far right from the loony "liberal" left!

Seems to me it's the so-called liberals who sold us this "multicultural society" that are at the root cause of the trouble. They ignored all warnings, and shouted down, and unreasonably branded as racist people like Enoch Powell who warned what would come to pass.

[Monsta®]

A sensible decision to exclude an attention-seeking bigoted idiot.

*looks up*

We have enough of those as it is.

this coming from run DMC so extremists can get away with what there doing cause if we say out they can shout racist!

double standards well said threegee! as long as your a muslim your king of the world!

[Guest mrsvic]

I think monsta is on about double standards.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi would beg to differ.

[Pete]

A sensible decision to exclude an attention-seeking bigoted idiot.

*looks up*

We have enough of those as it is.

I am 100% with Monsta on this one, it ok to have opinions as long as your opinion is the same as those that make the rules in this country, so it seems. If it had been a muslim that was coming onto the country to show a film about extremists they would have been welcomed with open arms by Gordon and his lot.

I also agree with Thregee, Enoch got it right but nobody wanted to listen to him he was called blind by some labour MPs, what Enoch said, we are now seeing on a daily basis and it will get worse you will wake up one morning and the country will no longer be yours.

[threegee]

Yusuf al-Qaradawi would beg to differ.

Or maybe not?

Al-Qaradawi, who is banned from entering the United States, visited the UK in 2004, sparking protests from Jewish groups and gay people, who regard him as anti-Semitic and homophobic.

Could having a Jewish Home Secretary now have something to do with the latest banning? Or would any such claim be racist in itself?

Then again we probably have to accept what The Muslim Council of Britain claims: That horrible reactionary and unreasonable right-wing David Cameron prevailed over the loony "liberal" left desire to let him come back.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it deplored the decision to refuse Yusuf al-Qaradawi a visa, and said the Government had caved to "unreasonable demands spearheaded by the Tory leader".

BTW isn't The Muslim Council of Britain supposed to be sugar 'n' spice and all things nice where this "multicultural society" thing is concerned? How could they possibly want to hear from, and encourage, a Muslim extremist?

Doesn't all add-up, does it?

[Hamburger Pimp]

The government was a totalitarian Orwellian nightmare yesterday, today they're "so-called liberal" looney lefties.

Did you get the bumper book of Richard Littlejohn political cliches for Christmas?

The government has to balance an individual's human rights and freedom of expression against the potential that they may cause disorder.

They've banned muslims in the past. There were no riots or threats of bombings. Now they've banned this Dutch eedjit. Good.

There is the chance, slight though it may be, that the Home Office, informed by the Police, are better able to make this call than a couple of right-wing apologists on an internet forum.

No offence.

[threegee]

The government was a totalitarian Orwellian nightmare yesterday, today they're "so-called liberal" looney lefties.

When you quote other people it's generally accepted practice not to write the contents of the quotation marks yourself. Not yesterday - a very real danger that this bunch of incompetents are delivering the country into the hands of totalitarians at some point in the future. Though I think that some elements of this government would happily ditch their pretensions and take power in such a regime.

The government has to balance an individual's human rights and freedom of expression against the potential that they may cause disorder.

He was only going to the House of Lords under invite. What precisely is the potential threat to disorder there? Are their Lordships going to riot, burn down the commons, or restore the feudal system?

The real reason for banning him is what has been termed by some senior figures as "appeasement".

So allowing a vocal minority that does not share our common values and wishes to overthrow our democracy, to dictate to the British People. Make a few threats - kill free speech - wow, we're well on the way to that Muslim state already!

They've banned muslims in the past. There were no riots or threats of bombings. Now they've banned this Dutch eedjit. Good.

Ah, right then. So what you're saying is that they need to threaten disorder and we won't be able to ban them? Could it be that it's only the billions of taxpayers money that's being spent spying on these extremists night and day that's keeping their subversive activities in check. We need to be told the true cost of this little multicultural society social experiment. The monetary cost as well as the cost to our hard fought for freedoms.

There is the chance, slight though it may be, that the Home Office, informed by the Police, are better able to make this call than a couple of right-wing apologists on an internet forum.

Glad you agree that it's a slight chance. This is a grossly incompetent government, on a scale we've seldom seen before. Now where's my copy of that thoroughly researched dossier on WMD? You know, the one prepared by security experts and government advisers that's so "informed" that we can confidently start a war over!

In any event it's not about making calls it's about standing up for principals. I don't even believe what the Home Secretary has done is legal under European law.

Your faith in ANY government is misplaced. Something that will start to occur to you with a little more experience of how the world really works.

[Monsta®]

wey there's all ways going to be two sides to an argument only the government dicided to ban one of them! typical

I don't agree with everything that Geert Wilders has to say, but I believe he has the right to say it in a democracy. Crossbench peer Baroness Cox

correct and fair

His fascist views are not welcome in our country where we pride ourselves as a multi-faith society Mohammed Shafiq, Ramadhan Foundation

is it your country?

see its only muslims extremeists that are not willing to openly discuss this! as they continually shout racist, multi-faith society! what tosh they would have a dictator leading in a second.

[mercuryg]

The government has to balance an individual's human rights and freedom of expression against the potential that they may cause disorder.

Then it should do so for all, not just those who's views don't sit with the current namby pamby let's be nice to the muslims cos we're scared of them politics of this current regime.

They've banned muslims in the past.

To great fanfare and dismay in all the cases i;ve red of; every been to Finsbury? I'd suggest a visit, for educational purposes.

There is the chance, slight though it may be, that the Home Office, informed by the Police, are better able to make this call than a couple of right-wing apologists on an internet forum.

The Home Office? The Police? Do you follow the daily incompetence that these two organisations get involved in? I'm glad you included the admission it may be a slight chance.

[kasyx]

Surely freedom of speech must either be there or not there. and where do you draw the line? even though im against what the man was saying, dont we live in a democracy where he has the right to say it? who was it who is quoted as saying "i m totally against what he is saying, but i will fight to the death for his freedom to say it"?

[Malcolm Robinson]

Having watched this movie there is not one bit where the guy actually incites anything rather he uses widely seen and easily got hold of images and news reports to broadcast the views of the people at the other side of the lens. As far as I can see he is saying ‘watch out!” I am not that daft as to think some people will not see it and use it as defacto evidence of subversion but if this is what all the fuss is about it seems to me we have all seen it and heard it before. It might be cynical manipulation of this media type to further an end but there is a lot of other stuff out there the same.

Should the guy be banned, don’t know, don’t know that much about him, but should he be banned on the evidence on the film, no. Would Rushdie have millions of pounds of protection now, should Spycatcher have been banned? Easily answered depending on what side of the fence you sit, not quite so easy if you are in charge of the fence, which I think is HP’s point, as a decision has to be made.

Kasyx’s post is right but only to a certain point. Yes we have freedom of speech but as a society we have agreed that there is a line of demarcation which shouldn’t be crossed, if you do you will be prosecuted, the laws are there to do it.

[Monsta®]

Easily answered depending on what side of the fence you sit, not quite so easy if you are in charge of the fence, which I think is HP's point

Hp's view is anti white anti british or should i say muslim, afro american a*se licker

[threegee]

...Yes we have freedom of speech but as a society we have agreed that there is a line of demarcation which shouldn't be crossed...

I don't think we have! Interesting to hear the hackneyed old sound bite about not shouting fire in a crowded theatre trotted out again - gets them every time! But THINK, how many people are stampeded because someone gets up and shouts "fire!". It doesn't happen in the modern world because we've learned about crowd behaviour and fire precautions. It doesn't happen not because there's a law against it (and there should be about giving out patently misleading information - politicians please note). It doesn't happen because of people's innate common sense. If there was mileage for mischief in doing it don't you think a hell-bent terrorist or loony would be regularly doing it?

The real reason for the UK's restrictions on freedom of speech is that there are issues which should be aired that those in power don't want to touch. The reasons are historical, fear of communism and the rise of the trade unions, etc.

We've unlearned what we were taught in the playground: "Sticks and stones..." Being frightened of ideas is the end of freedom (an absolute concept in itself) of speech and true democracy.

As in the case of our manipulative Dutch MP, suppressing - and particularly in being seen to suppress these ideas - only gives them more power. We've have heard next to nothing about this if he'd been allowed to travel to the Lords and answer questions on the film. But he figured he wouldn't be, and dummies in government obliged him with the publicity he couldn't have bought.