Yesterday, after having first indicated that the Conservative Party would not be making on comment on the Geert Wilders row, shadow home secretary Chris Grayling did issue a statement in which he attacked the Government's inconsistency over which "extremists" it would and wouldn't allow into this country.
He did not, however, appear to want to condemn the Government's decision to ban Mr Wilders from entering Britain, saying in fact that the Conservatives supported the ban if he has "expressed views that represent a threat to public security".
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has this afternoon commented on the matter to the Manchester Evening News - and whilst he repeats Mr Grayling's point about the Government's inconsistency, he seems to suggest that the ban was wrong:
"My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was."
Jonathan Isaby
Very wishy-washy, but at least he recognises what the right course of action was. That bodes well for when he is helping make decisions for real.
Posted by: AJJM | February 13, 2009 at 16:01
A true Cameroon classic. Thanks ConHome.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | February 13, 2009 at 16:04
Well I did write to my Labour MP with my sincerest thanks for what they had done: exposed their own fundamentally repressive tendencies, exposed their own cowardice, exposed their own hypocrisy, exposed their own dishonesty, exposed the true threat of Islam, the failure of their immigration and security policies and multiculturalism and given Mr Wilders and his film more coverage than he could have ever dreamed of.
Wish I could say the Tories were the solution to all this. Mr Osborne's misplaced regret doesn't amount to much I'm afraid.
Posted by: Hugh Oxford | February 13, 2009 at 16:10
The Conservative Party is barely more principled than Labour on the issue of Geert Wilders.
The freedom of speech of the Dutch MP in the UK should be fully supported.
The Conservative leadership seems to have no concerns of how the words of Islam inspire violent jihad against kaffirs.
Instead, we see the same sort of Tory appeasement towards Islam as Labour demonstrates, and the same sort of pandering for Muslim votes.
Posted by: Jack R | February 13, 2009 at 16:13
What a pathetic statement. Just typical of the opposition front bench. Trying to be all things to all men, and be careful not to say anything which might cause offence.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | February 13, 2009 at 16:21
Your 24 hours too late Georgie boy.
Posted by: gnosis | February 13, 2009 at 16:28
I remain very disappointed with the Conservative shadow ministers line on this.
David Davis would have done the right thing.
Grayling has sunk to a very low level IMHO.
Grayling seems to share his view with the illiberal Huhne.
Posted by: HF | February 13, 2009 at 16:30
Sorry that GO said this.I thought Chris Grayling was right although George is probably correct in saying that this gave Wilders more publicity.
I wonder if all those on this blog who stick up for free speech for Wilders would have said the same if he was an Islamist. Some of the posts I've seen over the last few days smack of double standards and hypocrisy.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 13, 2009 at 16:32
"Your 24 hours too late Georgie boy."
No he's had 24 hours to see which way the wind was blowing and come up with a bit of positioning adjustment, for I doubt this has anything to do principle.
Posted by: Iain | February 13, 2009 at 16:32
It's a little unfortunate that a statement could not have been agreed and a line kept to. It now looks as though George Osborne and Chris Grayling are not singing from the same hymn sheet! Careless.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 13, 2009 at 16:36
Great isn't it, the Government bans an elected politician from entry to this country, yet allows in someone convicted of manslaughter, who kills again here.
Posted by: Iain | February 13, 2009 at 16:49
Margaret Thatcher would have responded instinctively and instantly in favour of free speech.What a pity that no-one in the shadow cabinet has the courage of their convictions.
Posted by: erica | February 13, 2009 at 16:50
Your headline is mistaken. Osborne is not saying that the decision was "wrong"; that would imply a moral or legal judgement which he's not making. All he's saying is that it was a bad idea from a practical point of view.
Edward Huxley is exactly right. It's pathetic.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | February 13, 2009 at 16:51
Read it carefully.
Gids' statement is opposing the way in which Wilders was banned, not the banning itself.
Osborne could easily support the ban but not support the way in which it was applied as the statement implies.
Either ConHome didn't read it properly, or it was carefuly crafted to confuse.
Posted by: GB£.com | February 13, 2009 at 16:52
Margaret Thatcher would have responded instantly in favour of free speech.What a pity no-one in the shadow cabinet has the conviction to react in the same way.Another unopposed win for our Stalinist Government.
Posted by: erica | February 13, 2009 at 16:57
Reading it, it looks like Osborne would have preferred him banned in a "less public way"?
Posted by: Simon Newman | February 13, 2009 at 17:02
A moment's thought about this would indicate that banning him would create a veritable firestorm of publicity for Mr. Wilders' views.
For that reason Grayling has demonstrated a lack of judgement by siding with Jackboots Jacqui on this issue. For someone who has hitherto shown himself to be a safe pair of hands, this is a considerable disappointment.
One strongly suspects a lack of principle and courage here and more than just a little appeasement. Not our finest hour in defence of Liberty.
My take is at:
http://tinyurl.com/dxnhtq
Posted by: The Huntsman | February 13, 2009 at 17:10
This makes things worse if anything. George Osborne shows he has no concern for principle - just practicality. Like the Government he is for suppression of free speech - he just wants it done in a less obvious way!
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 17:19
"I wonder if all those on this blog who stick up for free speech for Wilders would have said the same if he was an Islamist."
This is insulting. I suggest that if you can actually produce examples of contradiction, you do so, otherwise shut up.
"Some of the posts I've seen over the last few days smack of double standards and hypocrisy."
You want hypocrisy? Contrast the govt's behaviour in this case with its past indulgence of the IRA, an organisation which existed specifically for the purpose of racist murder.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | February 13, 2009 at 17:19
Let me lay out two scenarios.
The Chris Grayling Scenario:
Predicated on the offensiveness of a foreign politicians beliefs (X)
If the Government felt it necessary in the best interest of public order then it is right that it was done.
When another extremist attempts to enter the country peddling their own flavour of vile lies.
Why hasn't the Government banned Y, after all they banned X?
Government: Spin, Spin, fidget, fidget banned.
The George Osborne Scenario:
The Government shouldn't have done it.
When another extremist attempts to enter the country peddling their own flavour of vile lies.
Why hasn't the Government banned Y?
Government: You said banning X was wrong. What are your motives for wanting Y gone? We're not doing anything.
In my view banning Wilders was right. We don't want ANY extremists in this country.
So the question for me, having rightly banned Wilders, is why are the Government protecting other extremists?
Posted by: WIlliam Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 17:23
Malcolm
What do I have to do to persuade you that I and many other sound conservatives are pro-Islam, pro-Arab, anti Sykes-Picot and anti-fluffing-Zionist??!
Can you really not believe that many thousands of conservatives truly believe in universal free speech?
What exactly is your interest in politics? I have never been able to work it out.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Chair, Ukip Friends of Islam | February 13, 2009 at 17:42
"So the question for me, having rightly banned Wilders, is why are the Government protecting other extremists?"
Agree, agree, agree!
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 13, 2009 at 17:42
It's naive to expect this contemptible opposition to show any spine or awareness of principle when they comment. What a vile rabble.
Posted by: John Coles | February 13, 2009 at 17:47
"In my view banning Wilders was right. We don't want ANY extremists in this country."
How do we define extremist? Mr Wilders is a democraticly elected member of the Dutch parliament. He is leader of the Liberal Party, which according to the latest opinion polls would be the third largest party if an genreal election was held tomorrow. While we know he is against Islamist radicals, his other policies may not be any different from other economic liberals.
He is clearly a controversial figure but does that mean he is extremist?
What concerns me is the way we know little of him but the BBC decide to call him "Far Right"? In an instant, he becomes "vile", "odious" etc. All the usual techniques derived from past dictatorships to render some one unothodox "an enemy of the people".
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 17:48
Doesn't go nearly far enough.
This whole episode makes muslims look bad - at least if he had been let in, only the protesters would have looked bad.
In fact, unless they were nutters chanting for death to the west, death to non-muslims and for jihad (rather confirming Wilders view), I don't think protesters would have looked bad.
As I support free speech for Wilders, I also support free speech for the anti-Wilders element too - if someone needs a make-believe friend called god or allah, I don't care, just leave me out it.
And it would have been good to have seen them make themselves known...
Posted by: pp | February 13, 2009 at 18:12
Martin Wright:
How do I define extremist? Well certainly my view of extremism includes people who define one of the major religious texts as 'fascist', compares it to 'Mein Kampf', calls for it to be edited to suit his personal beliefs and also calls for it to be banned.
This is from his wikipedia entry (nb it has been heavily edited over the last two days - not by me though)
Wilders is best known for his criticism of Islam, summing up his views as being that 'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam'.[3] Wilders believes that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted and all settled immigrants should be paid to leave.[3] Referring to the increased population of Muslims in the Netherlands, Wilders has said:
"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[26]
Wilders suggests that Muslims should “tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands” because it contains 'terrible things' and that Muhammad would “in these days be hunted down as a terrorist”[27]. On 8 August 2007, Wilders opined in a letter[28] to the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant that the Koran, which he called a "fascist book", should be outlawed in the Netherlands, like Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.[29] He stated that "The book incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order."[30] He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil".[25]
Due to this position on Islam, the Dutch-Morrocan rapper Appa, when interviewed about Wilders for a newspaper, said “if someone were to put a bullet in his head, I wouldn't mind”.[31] Wilder's religious intolerance prompted the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam Ahmed Aboutaleb to severely reprimand him.[32]
Nonetheless, Wilders has traveled widely in the Arab world, and is said to "wax poetic" over those "magnificent countries", in an interview. But, in the interview, he adds: "It's a real shame that these places are so chaotic."[7]
Now if half of that is true (and the De Volkskrant letter is accessible on the papers web-site) then he is in my eyes an extremist and is vile and odious and like all other extremists I really don't see why we would want such a person in this country?
So Martin I do my own research before I come to a judgement about someone and don't rely on the likes of the extremely biased BBC. Perhaps you should follow my example?
PS Wilders left the Liberals in 2004 and set up his own party.
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 18:13
Henry Mayhew:
Can you really not believe that many thousands of conservatives truly believe in universal free speech?
Indeed it is true, but it maybe a lot more convincing if it came from a representative of a party, who through one of it's Lords, had not validated the views of a man who wishes to deny people freedom of religion?
Perhaps your time would be better spent persuading your Party's leader to withdraw the whip from the moronic Lord Pearson.
After all it was his and Baroness Cox's actions that precipitated this debacle in the first place!
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 18:30
Martin Wright:
Mr Wilders is a democraticly elected member of the Dutch parliament.
1. Well let him peddle his lies in the place where he is paid for such bile. Not in a country where he has no mandate at all
2. I also believe that both Mugabe and Adolf Hitler were democratically elected. Is being elected really such a definitive criteria?
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 18:44
"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[26]
(William Blake's Ghost)
If this is a correct quote from Wilders then he is chillingly accurate.
Take a look at the streets of Leeds and Bradford. Large chunks of both cities are now colonised by a muslim majority determined to do things their way. If that means a minority studying advanced Bomb Making or the majority insisting on Sharia Law then that is what will happen.
Domino Pizza in Birmingham will not now serve Ham or Bacon toppings and have introduced a Halal butchery option.
Why does the political establishment - including our church leaders - kow tow to all this.
Unless the festering resentment of millions of the native population is lanced - then there will be a reckoning.
According to the oily Keith Vaz, it wasn't the Ms Smith who actually refused entry to Wilders, but a Border Official 'guided' by a letter from her.
Posted by: Rod Sellers | February 13, 2009 at 18:47
I do my own research before I come to a judgement about someone
Reading Wikipedia dos not count as "research".
Also, your evidence even if accurate doesn't demonstrate him wanting to "deny freedom of religion". It shows him opposing violence carried out in the name of religion.
If you really think that his criticism of Islam on this basis is unreasonable, I suggest you do some "research" into the early history of Islam. You might find it a bit of an eye-opener.
Oh, and finally, whilst Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, the enabling act which gave him dictatorial power a few months later was NOT passed democratically. "Research" that too.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | February 13, 2009 at 19:00
Well done G.O. now we know who your listening to. A victory for the right view.
Not thought trough at-all, Labour descended to knee Jerk rudeness to an MP from a country we considered among our closest friends. I am certain that the democratic unionists, would second George's sentiment.
Posted by: ross warren | February 13, 2009 at 19:20
I’m just so absolutely fed up hearing about religion & in particular that religion that is causing our MPs so much hassle & trouble.
I don’t care what religion it is I just like religion to be as far away from me & my secular life as possible, this, as the case seems to be, isn’t going to happen any time soon & because we have some religious people who seem adamant I should understand them & cater to their ever demanding ways, I really do think a major debate, is well over due, about how much religion secular people should have to put up with in their lives.
Religion has its place in some people’s lives, I have a right, I believe, to not have religion constantly thrust in my face because of one reason or another, but, I am ready to do my bit to iron out the religious problems we seem to have in our society if it helps get everything straight so we all know how we stand!
Are the religious people ready for that debate? I’m very sure most secular people are!
As for politicians saying this or not saying that about religion!
If MPs want to pander to a minority, whoever they are, & worry about that minority vote, they may find the majority will have their own view & say about that pandering, & only when it’s too late will the MPs remember it is the majority that make or break an MP!!!
Posted by: T. England | February 13, 2009 at 19:21
William Blake's Ghost,
That may be your definition of an extremist and I am sure many of us have different ones. But that does not make Wilders a criminal, even in his own country, where he has merely been accused, but not convicted.
Holding strong views and even expressing these very forcibly is not(quite yet)a crime in this country, even if these views might be considered by some to be extreme.
However, these views do become criminal, in this country, where they actively incite people to break the law, or incite violence or racial hatred. Wilders did not do this, nor is he accused (even by Jacqui Smith) of doing so.
The grounds for his exclusion were based solely upon the pretext that the expression of his very controversial (but legal) views might provoke violent and illegal actions from a small, but increasingly powerful, minority element within our own society, which do not consider themselves subject to British law.
The Conservative leader may possibly have made a value judgement that, in this specific case, the risk of extreme violence, leading possibly to some deaths and the inability of the police to exercise adequate control, and therefore endorsed the Home Secretary's decision, but, since this was not qualified by an immediate and rounding condenmation of the Government's failure in allowing such a situation to develop, he has condemned his own party to sharing the guilt when this problem eventually explodes, with more bloodshed and violence, as will inevitably be the case, when the normally tolerant and peaceful British public eventually lose patience with all of our present political posturers.
Posted by: David Parker | February 13, 2009 at 19:39
Malcolm Dunn:
”I wonder if all those on this blog who stick up for free speech for Wilders would have said the same if he was an Islamist.”
If indeed he was an Islamist he’d not only be speaking disparagingly about the West/Christianity, he’d be flying airliners into tall buildings and setting off bombs on the London Underground.
William Blake’s Ghost cites Wilders:
"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches! etc
I have heard a great many people express almost identical sentiments, in England, France, and Germany. For a very long time I’ve felt I was no longer living in my own country whenever work requires me (for example) to drive across swathes of London – plus Bristol, Birmingham…. Most of what you cite as coming from Wilders seems perfectly OK to me. I certainly see no problem with Wilders’ drawing attention to the fascist nature of the Koran: the same could indeed be said of a great deal of the Old Testament, that archaic text filled with bloodthirsty retribution.
Posted by: Malcolm Stevas | February 13, 2009 at 19:41
Pathetic statement from Osborne.
I mean, this is truly a scandal. You don't have to agree with Mr. Wilders. But he is an important politician of a party that is polling in third place in Dutch opinion polls. He doesn't incite violence or racism, he opposes the political influence of Islam. And so do I! Will I also be barred from entering the UK? Absurdity.
That the Tories refuse to stand up to this portends very badly. What cowardice!
Posted by: Goldie | February 13, 2009 at 19:41
We in the Conservative Party are the one,s who are fully responsible for the islam,muslim,immigrant threat to our country and its peoples,we are the one,s who brought in all the EU treaties that have ruined our beatifull democratic country.Shame on us all,starting with Heath,Thatcher,Major,et al the traitors of England and Great Britain and its possesions.The UK Conservative Party clearly stinks to high heaven of hypocracy and self indulgence and is obviously no way eurosceptic regardless of stating thus for many,many years,the electorate have now found us out and we are about to pay the ultimate price of being completely annihalated in all future elections.
Posted by: R.Baker. | February 13, 2009 at 19:50
Alex Swanson:
Did I claim that my research was solely based on Wikipedia? No as my post indicates. So pretending it does is purile of you.
Will the early history of Islam open my eyes? Only if it is significantly less brutal than the early history of what was done in the name of Christianity. My arguments are not in defence of Islam. Their extremists are despicable but that still doesn't mean I want that nasty little fascist spouting his lies in this country just as I don't want any other extremists!
As for the denial of the freedom of religion charge. Well if wanting to ban the Muslim religious text is not denying their freedom to religion, then I really don't know what is.
Oh, and finally, whilst Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, the enabling act which gave him dictatorial power a few months later was NOT passed democratically.
Well we had better hope that Wilders doesn't get the chance to copy Hitler then hadn't we?
Else we may see this sort of thing again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
Yes it's from Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that it is not valid information and if you don't like it......
Shish!
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 19:53
You see how powerful the PC spell is it addles the brains of even the best educated.
Imagine what its doing to the children Even so you would have to have slush for brains not to recognize that Geert Wilders has had his human rights trampled. This is the worst possible sort of intellectual protectionism its poison to our democracy. Come on George for the sake of the Nation get angry.
Posted by: The bishop swine | February 13, 2009 at 19:54
William Blake's Ghost.
"Perhaps you should follow my example?"
In what way? I have not argued that Wilders is wonderful. I merely think he has a point of view and has a right to express it. He should not be suppressed and besmirched by a Stalinist style smear campaign.
Let's look at him in the round. And though one normally is sceptical of Wikipedia, for the sake of speed I've looked at the bits that you've chosen not to mention. He is in favour of small government, lower taxes, more direct local democracy, greater contribution to the war on terror, greater use of nuclear power, toughening up the lax drug laws. He is a supporter of Israel (not a usual feature of "Far Right" politicians) and has lived and worked there.
He is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and further expansion of the EU. He attacks the Dutch political system essentially for its democratic deficit. He feels that politicians are only interested in their careers, not in implementing the will of the people (sounds familiar!). As far as I understand it he is NOT opposed to all immigration, though he wants immigrants to integrate into the Dutch way of life.
So far nothing particularly unusual.
So what we are left with in the case against him is his attitude to Muslims and Islamism. If you think everything to do with Islam in the Netherlands is rosy, then I assume you have never heard of Pym Fortuyn (dead), Theo van Gogh (dead) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (fled abroad and under death threats). It is interesting that Ms Ali is regularly lauded (deservedly in my view) in our media despite being highly critical of Islam. Presumably she’s alright because she is a black feminist but Wilders, who shares similar views isn’t ok, because he’s neither of those things.
He clearly does see a combination of Islamist militancy and large scale Muslim immigration as a threat to the Dutch way of life. Clearly that is a controversial point of view but I don’t think it is impermissible. While it remains a majority, the “traditional” indigenous Dutch have the right to self determination and can draw up rules on the level of immigration and the degree of integration and assimilation they want.
The latest controversy is about the film Fitna which splices selected passages from the Koran with pictures of various Islamist atrocities, allegedly inspired by those quotations. No one has said that either the quotations or the pictures are fabrications. The problem is that it presents Islam in a very bad light, and one obvious criticism is that it is selective. Nevertheless the film could be a useful stimulus to debate. Surely something highly controversial is better than just pretending there are no problems?
Initial attempts to prosecute Wilders on the basis of “hate speech” failed. The Dutch public prosecutor’s office took the eminently respectable point of view: “That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable. Freedom of expression fulfils an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That means that offensive comments can be made in a political debate.” Unfortunately various interest groups have agitated and persuaded a court to force the Public Prosecutor to prosecute. We shall have to wait to see the outcome. Wilders has hired the Netherlands’ most distinguished counsel and may go to the Supreme Court to get the lower court’s decision overturned. Even if the prosecution is not struck out, Wilders has a reasonable prospect of acquittal.
Wilders holds and expounds some strong and controversial views. In the sense that he avoids the bland consensus in the centre you could in one sense call him an extremist, but not in the sense that many people used the word these days i.e. as an advocate of violence. Many people will not like his astringency but I contend that it is good for the consensus to be challenged. Unfortunately the tendency of the centre these days is not to debate these issues but to attempt to silence any turbulent priests.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 20:04
As with many things Osborne is wrong.The government were right to keep out this repulsive racist who`s sole aim was to spread hate.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 13, 2009 at 20:18
Your assessment of the criminality of Wilders is indeed interesting but as I never suggested he was a criminal it is entirely irrelevant.
Furthermore, in attempting to spread the blame for this to the major parties I can only assume that you are trying to deflect it from those who are in large part to blame.
Namely, Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox. If they had not given Wilders the credibility of their positions, then the visit would have been little more than a damp squib. Add to that the hysterical over reaction of Lord Ahmed (as one of the Government's Lords perhaps they should have restrained him somewhat)and in my view the Government had little choice but to ban Wilders and the major opposition parties had little choice but to support the Government.
Reading your last paragraph you seem to believe the Government should have foreseen this some time back. Pray tell what you expected them to do given that those who are our Lords are expected to act in a responsible manner?
Either way it doesn't change my views about Wilders. The country does not need politicians like him visiting just as it doesn't need extremist preachers of any religious faith visiting either.
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 20:28
Martin Wright, I applaud your 20.04 post, cogent and the best so far. Re Wilders:
He is in favour of small government, lower taxes, more direct local democracy, greater contribution to the war on terror, greater use of nuclear power, toughening up the lax drug laws. He is a supporter of Israel (not a usual feature of "Far Right" politicians) and has lived and worked there.
He is opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and further expansion of the EU. He attacks the Dutch political system essentially for its democratic deficit. He feels that politicians are only interested in their careers, not in implementing the will of the people (sounds familiar!). As far as I understand it he is NOT opposed to all immigration, though he wants immigrants to integrate into the Dutch way of life.
He sounds like a thoroughly good sort, far closer to my own way of thinking than just about any UK politician one might name - excepting possibly his ideas on drugs, about which I am more tolerant. If he cares to move here and stand for Parliament in my constituency, he'll have my vote...
Posted by: Malcolm Stevas | February 13, 2009 at 20:33
You feel insulted Alex Swanson? Tough .The double standards of you and others on this blog make me rather sick. The antics of Wilders are designed to cause hate. I see little difference between him and some of the muslim extremists who should also not be allowed into this country.
'Margarat Thatcher would have instinctively and instantly in favour of free spech'-erica. Oh absolute garbarge! Are you too young to remember her banning the speech of SinnFein/IRA spokesman in the British media? Or are you just a liar.
Henry I have no interest at all in explaining my political philosophy to you.However unlike you I'm loyal to Britain and the all the people within it and want no one to preach hate within our borders.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 13, 2009 at 20:33
"If we don’t watch out this could get ugly!"
Have you seen the Film? He hasn't invented anything or altered anything. He may well have edited things together to achieve his desired effect. Its chilling stuff what ever interpretation you care to put on it.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 21:14
I was genuinely interested Malcolm. All you seem to believe in is that unlike you I am not loyal to this country "and all the people in it".
Take a moment to think about what you are saying there Malcolm. What sense are you making? All that can mean is that you are not going to persecute people. You can't be loyal to the thoughts of all the people in this country, because they are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Are you really saying that you will agree with whatever anyone says, so long as they are in this country?
Why do you post if you are not interested in explaining your political philosophy? It is a mystery!
Anyway, I support your freedom to post the thoughts that you do have, as well as the empty spaces around them.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - puzzled kipper | February 13, 2009 at 21:20
'Margarat Thatcher would have instinctively and instantly in favour of free spech'-erica. Oh absolute garbarge! Are you too young to remember her banning the speech of SinnFein/IRA spokesman in the British media?
Absolutely true. We to see their faces but not hear them speak. They (the BBC) had to use actors to voice over any speech. "Don't allow them the oxygen of publicity." or some such guff. She was wrong and most of us knew it. It suppose in her defence its possible to argue that we were at war with the IRA, but not so our friends in the Netherlands.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 21:25
Grief scrub that last post its a mess.
'Margarat Thatcher would have instinctively and instantly in favour of free spech'-erica. Oh absolute garbarge! Are you too young to remember her banning the speech of SinnFein/IRA spokesman in the British media?
Absolutely true. We were allowed to see their faces but not hear them speak. They (the BBC) had to use actors to voice over any speech. "Don't allow them the oxygen of publicity." or some such guff, I seem to recall was the reasoning. She was wrong and most of us knew it. I suppose, in her defence, its possible to argue that we were at war with the IRA, but are we not friends with the Netherlands.
I have got a migraine coming on. that's my excuse for the last post and I'm sticking to it...goodnight.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 21:30
Well his review of what happened is a bit vague but mostly right, apart from it still doesn't say that he thinks he shouldn't have been blocked. Still only his personal response.... but it's too late anyway.
They dropped the ball yesterday morning and they haven't even noticed it's rolling into the distance.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | February 13, 2009 at 21:39
Ross Warren @ 21:14
As we can see my post has now been removed & although I think I made a valid point & warning to how certain parties can cash in on a situation, my post was leading to a page with certain video with search results which contained a certain advertisement!
That’s the Mods call & I respect their decision to remove it.
However!
I think you have me wrong!
When I finished with what you quoted I meant the on-line war!
Look at how clever that party have been with their advertising & how web wise they have shown themselves to be.
The web, being the new media which we are all tuning into can lead us to places we wouldn’t normally go, if someone is smart they can lead you on the web to places you didn’t realise you were going!
So when I used the word ugly I should have really said nasty.
One last point, I am for letting him into Britain to have the debate with who ever wants to debate with him.
PS, my heads not exactly straight tonight either ;o)
Posted by: T. England | February 13, 2009 at 21:41
I wonder how many of you have actually seen the film ?
The Dutchman, described as "ultra right wing", "repugnant", and "extreme" merely depicts what Moslems are themselves saying. Who, therefore, is the extremist ?
As a life long Tory (49 years old) I am appalled by the Shadow Cabinet's spinelessness in the face of the greatest threat to British liberty.
I see no clear blue water between the Tories and Labour on the issue of appeasing Islamists and political correctness
UKIP have done a brilliant job in defending British interests by inviting Mr Wilders to Parliament
Posted by: Neil Turner | February 13, 2009 at 21:44
William Blake's Ghost @ 20.28
I can't work out to whom you are replying. It doesn't seem to refer to mine of 20.04 (except possibly you first para). But on a quick scan I can't find anyone else's either.
It does help if you put a name and time!
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 21:47
It is worth going to Cranmer's blog. He has being leading on this for the last three days. His latest post gives the text of the speech that Mr Wilders would have given to the House of Lords, if the thought police had not intervened. Inter alia, Wilders has needed police protection for the last four years, i.e. well before he made this film.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 22:02
My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was. The Ed suggests Osborne “seems to suggest the ban was wrong”. He is saying the ban is wrong only because it brought publicity to Mr Wilders. So it seems the party leadership actually supports the Government as far at Mr Wilders views are concerned. But Mr Wilders is a democratic politician who opposes violence. They do say that more murder-inciting Islamists should be kept out but they agree with the Government on Mr Wilders. Absolutely shameful. Pathetic. Weak.
Perhaps it’s because the leadership cannot possibly be seen as supporting someone as “right-wing”. The BBC has described Mr Wilders as “controversial”, and as “right-wing” – one of the most damming labels that could be given to someone in the world of the BBC. So it seems the leadership seems more afraid of offending the BBC and the rest of the liberal-left media than they are to stand up for freedom of speech and what is right. Maybe they also want to be seen as responsible in not supporting anyone who could stir up “community harmony and therefore public security” - if so, the leadership supports surrendering to threats, or implied threats, of violent demonstrations. Appeasement.
I wonder if all those on this blog who stick up for free speech for Wilders would have said the same if he was an Islamist. (Malcolm Dunn 1632). Probably not if the Islamist was one who’d incite and justify murder and violence.
Posted by: Philip | February 13, 2009 at 22:09
I echo Neil Turner's view. If you're going to denounce the film, at least be bothered to watch it first.
If you do watch it, the film doesn't express any opinions, it just reads out text from the Koran and intersperses it with footage of clerics ranting against the West.
Why does the Koran warrant such protection? It's a made up book anyway. The government (and the spineless Chris Grayling and David Cameron) are affording more protection to a few-thousand year old work of fiction than they do to free-speech.
How would our present leaders have reacted to Salman Rushdie?
Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | February 13, 2009 at 22:13
Many of the posts are truly pathetic and contradictory.
First, some people criticise the leadership for not speaking out, then the very same people criticise the Shadow Chancellor for speaking out.
Posted by: Super Blue | February 13, 2009 at 22:18
Martin Wright:
I'll take the condescending arrogance to indicate I've hit a few nerves.
Oh goody lots of conservative sounding policies. Am I supposed to be impressed? I'm sure I could scan Mein Kampf or the BNP manifesto and find something that is of similarly superficial interest too.
Should I also be impressed at Wilders legal status? Sorry as far as I am concerned that is the business of the Dutch people.
As for Ali, Van Gogh and Fortuyn, thank you I am aware of them and note it is always the practice of the disingenuous to throw numerous diversions in the way. Anyway, lets deal with them.
Ms Varsi Ali of course is a muslim who has suffered because of it. Her stand on issues such as female circumcision and the general treatment of women in Islamic society is to be applauded although I do think some of her methods put her at risk. However, I do not think she has crossed the line and certainly do not condone her persecution.
Neither do I think Fortuyn had crossed the line. Certainly his murder was an atrocity and it is only right that the Dutch Criminal Justice system have dealt with the perpetrators as they see fit.
That said Fortuyn was far too liberal for my tastes and I suspect also for many of those who have rallied so readily to support Wilders.
That brings us too the delightful Theo Van Gogh. I must admit it is hard to decide whether his anti-semitism outdoes his Islamaphobia. I always thought his comment about the 'smell of caramel' was particularly offensive. However, that said it seems Van Gogh was just a particularly offensive person. Whether he crossed the line politically I am unsure. Again though, none of that excuses the atrocity of his murder.
Which having been led 'up and down the garden path' brings us back to Wilders. From my recollection he is the only one who has called for the banning of the Qur'an. In my judgement this crosses the line from political contraversy and offensiveness into political intolerance. That is where I draw the line.
Have you checked out Ms Ali's web-site? Emblazoned across the top of it is this sentence:
Tolerance of Intolerance is cowardice
However, contraversial Wilders is, it is his intolerance of a society's generic belief system that is unacceptable and should be rejected just as the intolerance of certain factions within all societies should be rejected.
All this said, the thing is Wilders is the Dutch nations problem and I will be happy for him to stay that way. After all we have enough problems of our own without entertaining other nations problems!
Posted by: William Blake's Ghost | February 13, 2009 at 22:32
When are we going to get an actual Conservative Party supporting such Conservative principles as Free Speech?
At the moment the socalled 'Conservative Party' appears to be run by pusillanimous pansies terrified of making any actual stand on any point of principle for fear of offending anyone.
Posted by: Kit Ingoldby | February 13, 2009 at 23:03
Pathetic!
Let's drive yet more voters to the vile BNP shall we.
Posted by: Mr Angry | February 13, 2009 at 23:20
At 2209, a typo in my comment! I meant "threaten" "community harmony and therefore public security", (not "stir up"...)
Posted by: Philip | February 13, 2009 at 23:39
William Blake's Ghost, perhaps the reason Churchill and Wilders noted similarities between Mein Kampf and the Qur'an is because of the similarities between them.
A. They were both the textual rallying point for mystical movements.
B. Both of these movements were militarily expansionist.
C. Both documents are psychopathically anti-Jewish.
D. Both documents served as the rhetorical justification for the military domination of countless European cultures, starting with unprovoked attacks (Spain 711, Poland 1939).
If you'd like to point out some differences between the texts, be my guest.
Or you could just rely on the usual leftist canards: the Crusades preceded Muslim attacks on Europe (they didn't); the Muslims allowed nonbelievers to serve them (so did the Nazis); Islam is a religion just like any other (all religions are different, and some have politico-military implications); criticism of Islam is racism (Muslims are not a race).
Posted by: Blode0322 | February 14, 2009 at 07:30
If the Home office were to ban George Osborne from speaking in public would anyone miss him ?
Geert Wilders wants the hate in The Koran banned just as The Netherlands and Germany ban publication and sale of Mein Kampf - you can buy it in Britain but it will be confiscated in The Netherlands yet the hatred of Jews and Christians contained in The Koran is propagated in mosques and chanted on the streets.
His position is consistent and logical. The attempts to silence an Anti-Establishment Politician is evidence of the isolated elite trying to hold down the general public. It is typical of an Ancien Regime seeking to supress change and control dialogue. It is exactly what the CPGB tried in the USSR until the regime collapsed - it could not reform.
Sakharov attacked the tenets of the system and was persecuted with internal exile - the regimes of Western Europe are crumbling and losing public legitimacy. At some stage as the economic crisis deepens and major companies fold leaving unemployment of say 40% in major cities the EU regimes will try to use martial law and troops to keep order.
Geert Wilders is the John Wilkes of our day and he is being treated by the Establishment just as Wilkes was in his day. We are moving back to the repressive era of Pitt and his Sedition Acts controlling popular assembly and Combination Acts against friendly societies and trades unions.
The political elites are terrified of being toppled and seek to control the agenda. They have lost.
Posted by: TomTom | February 14, 2009 at 07:59
From the sounds of the public reaction to this issue, the whole of the established political class have gone out on a limb and have precious little support for the position they have taken, Ban him (Labour), ban him quietly (Conservative), ban him (LibDem). The audience vote on Any Questions was unanimously (apart from one) to oppose the ban on Wilders (David Davis getting the most enthusiastic response).
Posted by: Iain | February 14, 2009 at 10:07
Next year the incoming Conservative goverment should establish a Ministry of Free Speech. To decide what may - and more importantly may not - be said. And of course who may say it.
Any one wishing to say anything at all, in public or in private, would be obliged to obtain a " free speech permit" from the Minister in advance.
I am sure that my excellent idea will be met with enthusiasm by freedom-loving Mr Cameron and his libertarian team.
Posted by: Peter Fluck | February 14, 2009 at 10:10
Meanwhile all our 'ban him' politicians have nothing to say on the convicted killer being allowed entry to the UK who kills again.
Posted by: Iain | February 14, 2009 at 10:32
William Blake's Ghost @22.32
You haven't hit any raw nerves here, as I don't have any proprietorial interest in Mr Wilders. Your resort to pejorative terms – my “condescending arrogance” - suggests that I may have hit yours. My standpoint is not that Mr Wilders is perfect but simply that he has a right to his point of view and the right to express it.
He has caused alarm in establishment circles because of his radical stance. Of course he could be very wrong in his analysis, but on the other hand there’s just a chance that he might be right. Wouldn’t it be sensible in a democracy to hear his arguments rather than trying to suppress him?
I wasn’t being disingenuous in giving a fuller outline of Wilders’ stances or the recent history of Islamist atrocities in the Netherlands, you were being misleading by giving no context or background. I tried to redress that. It was an attempt to arrive at a fairer picture, some balance. It is relevant even if you don’t want to admit it.
By omitting any background your original presentation on Wilders’ criticism of Islam created the impression that his concern about Islamist influence in the Netherlands had come almost from nowhere. Now although the Dutch have not suffered the trauma of an atrocity like the 7/7 bombings, their experience sounds very traumatic to me. I find the situation where prominent politicians and artists are either murdered or sent into hiding for years as a result of their opinions far more frightening than the random bombings that we have suffered. Given all this, is it so surprising that some one might be just a tad angry about the growing power and influence of Islamism in their country? I suspect a lot of Dutch people feel that way and Mr Wilders is voicing their concern.
You say that you find Mr Wilders vile and odious. Is that because he is lying about the violent passages in the Koran and the violence perpetrated by militant Islamists? Or is it because he expresses strong opposition to the Islamists’ violence and their hatred for western secular society rather than sweeping his concerns under the carpet? Or perhaps it’s because having reached his conclusion he proposes a solution? He has reached a conclusion that most people will find alarming, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is illogical or wrong. It could just be that militant Islam is simply incompatible with western democracy, in a way that, say, Buddhism or Hinduism aren’t.
My bottom line is freedom of speech. Whether Wilders is wrong or right he has a right to speak and we have a right to hear. I don’t care a damn if some people are offended. We are all offended by others’ opinions and actions every day and we just live with it. Anything worth saying is likely to offend some one somewhere.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 14, 2009 at 10:47
T.England
To be honest I look out for your posts because I find your views refreshing. So don't fret I haven't made any judgement against you, rather I tend to respect what you say.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 14, 2009 at 11:42
This Wildersgate saga was a total red herring and one day wonder, its simple diverting the media from further scrutiny of the government in the right area’s. And lets face it, as freedom of speech goes, how many more people have bothered to watch the film because of the publicity? Portillo didn’t think it was done deliberately to prevent Brown’s appearance at the Liaisons committee headlining the news, I have my doubts on that score! Classic New Labour tactic straight out of their bible on spin, and the political blogsphere have fallen for it.
This Dutch guy has been coming over here without a problem until now, and the press have hardly noticed.
The government needed a really good day to bury bad news yesterday, and Wildergate was a gift from the gods. And its been a win win situation for both parties as far as I can see. This is not about free speech, this whole fiasco was about covering the Brown and the government’s backsides yesterday. FSA bonuses + Brown’s less than impressive performance in front of the select committee + civil servants expenses and yet another Gordon pal’s in the headlines for the wrong reasons.
The reason Mandy and Campbell were so good for so long is because they could manipulate the media and divert the anger away from them on the more electorally damaging story to one less explosive elsewhere. And they did so successfully yesterday, lets face, Woolies women is not going to be as aggravated with the government over this issue as she might be about all the other very damaging stories about the government’s stewardship of the economy and their banking friends.
This story was tailored made for the Daily Mail, and it will certainly have shifted the emphasis away from their almost blizzard like bad headlines for Brown and Darling….
I think that free speech is important, but on this occasion we have been manipulated. And the supposed victim in all of this is us, not the Dutch MP or his movie. He must be rubbing his hands with all the extra publicity and notoriety this has brought him.
After all these years, I am just glad we have a Conservative front bench team finally smart enough not to fall into these carefully laid Labour elephant traps. They called it right in their response over the last few days, and yes, it was a sound political decision. It depresses me to still see some in the Tory party and on the right generally falling for this type of manipulation in such a predictable way.
Now remind me which house Lord Mandelson sits in right now?? Hmmm, the HoL’s! Maybe he popped along to watch the film, it would certainly be fun if we could find a senior Labour Minister who had bothered to before they started pontificating about it in the media…They couldn’t give a toss what was in it, but it was a well timed excuse to shift the news from a raft of bad headlines. Suddenly you couldn’t move for Labour bodies in the media defending their stand on this, not often we see that these days. Job done!
Posted by: ChrisD | February 14, 2009 at 14:13
More evidence that we shouldn't expect a Tory government to defend our civil liberties or our constitution, any more than a Labour government.
It seems a fairly basic idea that nobody in this country, Muslim and non-Muslim, is above the law, and that therefore nobody has the right to use, or threaten to use, unlawful means to suppress lawful freedom of speech.
These events should be investigated by at least a Committee of the House of Lords, whose privileges have been impugned, and preferably by a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and both Jacqui Smith and Lord Ahmed should be required to explain themselves.
But I won't hold my breath while I wait for the Tory leadership to demand that.
What a totally useless, dumbed-down, party the Tories have become; even the simplest, most obvious, most basic issues are now beyond their understanding.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | February 14, 2009 at 15:22
Ross Warren at 11:42
Thankyou :o)
Posted by: T. England | February 14, 2009 at 16:19
The Film should be watched before judging him. There is nothing new, most of the footage will be utterly familiar to most people. It is clearly edited together to make a point but there is also no arguing that the point made is not a true account of extreme Islam. No conclusions are drawn and no message is attached. It simply shows plain documented facts. G.O. really should have come out far stronger as on this evidence our friends in the Netherlands are simple stating facts.
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 14, 2009 at 16:39
Henry when we met you werre consistently urging me to leave England to seek my fortune in the Gulf or Saudi. I have no desire to leave this country and wish it be a better place. If that means a few foreign extremists are banned from coming here to make trouble so be it.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | February 14, 2009 at 16:51
Pathetic. If the politically correct pansies who run the Tory Party give a damn about doing anything more than aping this awful government they'd have come out with something a good deal stronger than this weak, weak, statement. I was thinking I might vote Tory at the next election - least worst option, etc. Now I can't even contemplate that grudging vote.
Posted by: James Hickling | February 14, 2009 at 19:50
Nothing wrong with making your fortune Malcolm. I correctly predicted, I think, that this country's economy (etc) is shot.
You should be grateful for good advice!
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | February 14, 2009 at 20:09
Without a doubt, Mr. Wilders should not have been banned from entering our country. By the way, I have noticed how commentators often fail to distinguish between the so-called "extreme right" and those of a right-wing persuasion. Distinctions between the two, are rarely pointed out.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | February 15, 2009 at 20:47
Neil's right -- watch the video. It quotes the religious text and it shows videos made by extremists themselves.
Wilders is no doubt bigotted and has clearly skewed views on the subject but not so much that this can be seen as anything but a freedom-of-speech issue. And the three main parties have all admitted this week that they don't believe in it.
Posted by: Cllr Gavin Ayling | February 15, 2009 at 21:50
According to the Telegraph, Fred Phelps and his infamous Westboro Baptist Church will shortly be gracing us with their presence. It'll be interesting to see whether they - whose opposition to homosexuality is based on irrational religious belief - get the same treatment from Jacqui Smith as Geert Wilders, whose opposition to Islam is based on evidence, logic and argument.
Posted by: Leo Enticknap | February 16, 2009 at 22:39
It is excellent news, that the British Home secretary Jacqui Smith, has acted swiftly to stop the international villain the Reverend Fred Phelps, ( alias Dr Julius No, alias Ernest Stavro Blofeld, alias Auric Goldfinger, alias Dr Kananga, alias Francisco Scaramanga, alias Karl Stromberg, alias Hugo Drax, alias Kristastos, alias Kamal Khan, alias General Orlov, alias Max Zorin, alias General Koskov, alias Franz Sanchez, alias Alec Trevelyan, alias Elliot Carver, alias Viktor Renard Zokas, alias Gustav Graves, alias Le Chifre ), from entering Britain. I tried to contact the Reverend Phelps for his thoughts on this matter, unfortunately my call to his flying submarine was apparently blocked the British GCHQ in Cheltenham.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5767077.ece
http://www.signmovies.net/videos/news/index.html
A computer simulation of the Reverend Phelps' flying sub.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVtW4CP5YW8
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Posted by: Adrian Wainer | February 19, 2009 at 19:11
Sorry folks there is a typo in my last posting it should read:
I tried to contact the Reverend Phelps for his thoughts on this matter, unfortunately my call to his flying submarine was apparently blocked by British GCHQ in Cheltenham.
http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
Bye the way, here is some rare CIA obtained footage, of the Reverend Phelps speaking with two staff members, at the Westboro Baptist Church, Pacific Area Headquarters,.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3qf0Z6IV8g
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Posted by: Adrian Wainer | February 19, 2009 at 19:34