John on February 14, 2009 at 10:15 am
Geert Wilders is a Dutch MP. Last year he created a short film (7 minutes) which connects the Quran to terrorism. The film, called Fitna, has been all over the web and caused a predictable stir, including death threats.
This week Wilders was scheduled to address the British House of Lords on the topic of his film. It never happened. A Muslim member of the Lords wrote the Home Office and demanded that Wilders be denied entry to the UK on the grounds that he would stir up “religious hatred.” Sadly, this worked. Wilders attempted to enter the country and was turned away at the airport.
Now Melanie Phillips and Nazir Ahmed (the Muslim MP) are having it out in the press. Here’s Melanie:
So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.
It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.
It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.
Here’s the response from Nazir Ahmed:
Wilders’ film, Fitna, takes a lot of Qur’anic verses out of context and relates them to some terrible terrorist events, connecting them as though such acts are a religious teaching. I thought this would lead to extremist groups from both sides â€“ far-right organisations like the BNP and extremist Muslims â€“ rallying behind him.
As a result of my letters, the home secretary wrote to Wilders to say his presence would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK”, and that therefore he was banned from entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence would be a threat to national security, public order or the safety of its citizens. I agree with her assessment. In the past, we have refused entry to people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others because of the language they have used, which could incite hatred and violence.
In an article in the Spectator, Melanie Phillips falsely claims that I had threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to demonstrate against Wilders. As a result, I have had hundreds of abusive emails, phone calls and threats from around the world to my office, my staff and myself.
I’m looking forward to Melanie’s response.
Category: Islamic Jihad |