Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Geert Wilders Refused Entrance To UK

Britain no longer deserves to be considered a home of free men.

Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and maker of the film Fitna ( which you can see here) has been barred from the UK and threatened with arrest if he goes there after receiving another invitation from a member of the House of Lords to come to the UK, present a private showing of the film and discuss it with the participants afterwards:

This morning Lord Malcolm Pearson, a member of the British House of Lords, announced that he has invited Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, to show the movie Fitna in a committee room of the House of Lords next Thursday (12 February). Mr. Wilders has been asked to address a private meeting with members of the British Parliament, explaining to the Peers and MPs why he made Fitna and to engage in an open and frank discussion with them.

This afternoon Mr. Wilders received a letter from the British Embassy in The Hague saying that he is a “persona non grata” in the United Kingdom. The ambassador told Mr. Wilders that he is a threat to public security and public harmony because of the controversy created by Fitna. Mr. Wilders intends to go to London anyway. “Let them arrest me in Heathrow,” he says.

If Mr. Wilders is denied entry to the United Kingdom, it will be the first time that Britain refuses entry to an elected politician from another member state of the European Union. The Dutch government has protested to the British government over the unprecedented barring of an EU parliamentarian by another EU country

As regular members of Joshua's Army will recall, Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders was originally invited by a member of the House of Lords and some of her colleagues to a private meeting in London to see a screening of Wilder's film a month ago, followed by discussion, questions and debate, the way things normally go in a free society.

But what happened instead is that Lord Ahmad, a Labour-appointed Muslim Peer actually threatened to 'mobilize 10,000 Muslims' in the streets to prevent Wilders from entering London and threatened to sue the Peer who was organizing the event.

Wilders was subsequently disinvited and the showing of Fitna was cancelled. The Pakistani Press was jubilant, and Lord Ahmed praised Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’.

After that debacle Lord Pearson decided to reinvite Wilders:

Lord Pearson could not bear the thought that the “mother of all parliaments” might be perceived as giving in to threats. Hence he decided to
reinvite Mr. Wilders. Black Rod, the head of security at the House of Lords, has ordered extra security for the event.

The House of Lords event is hosted by Lord Malcolm Pearson of Rannoch, a Peer with a special interest in the European Union, Islamism and education. It will be chaired by Baroness Caroline Cox of Queensbury, a Peer and a human rights campaigner with a strong commitment to humanitarian aid and education; she is the founder of The International Islamic Christian Organisation for Reconciliation and Reconstruction.

In the press release issued this morning, Lord Pearson writes:

Depite threats of demonstration from a British Peer and Muslim community leaders, the meeting will go ahead. Wilders’ film "Fitna features verses from the Quran alongside images of the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September 2001, Madrid in March 2004 and London in July 2005. The film equates Islam’s holy text with violence and ends with a call to Muslims to remove ‘hate preaching’ verses from the Quran. It provoked protests in Muslim-majority countries including Indonesia and Pakistan.

The leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, Wilders has lived under 24 hour police protection since 2004. Following Fitna's release online in March 2008 al Qaeda issued a fatwa calling for Wilders’ murder. Wilders currently faces prosecution in Holland for incitement to hatred and discrimination. The charges are based on his film Fitna and comments in the Dutch press last year in which he argued that as Mein Kampf has been banned in Holland, the Quran should
similarly be banned under Dutch incitement laws.

Wilders called the Dutch Court of Appeal’s decision to prosecute an attack on freedom of expression. “Participation in the public debate has become a dangerous activity. If you give your opinion, you risk being prosecuted,” he said.

Here's the letter Wilders received from the British Government that same afternoon:

Dear Mr Wilders

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State's view. If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security, you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19. You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.

Yours sincerely,

Irving N. Jones

On behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Secretary of State, of course, is Jack Straw, who is dependent on Muslim votes for his seat in Parliament. Just like the Labor party needs their votes to stay in power.

It isn't the British government who's running things in the UK anymore. It's Britain's radical Muslims.

Wilders, with characteristic courage plans to go anyway. "Let them put me in handcuffs at Heathrow."

He thus demonstrated more character than the British government which wants him barred and silenced.

The grimly funny thing is that is isn't Wilders or his film that threaten security in the UK. It's the people who are threatening a jihad if he's allowed in Britain who are the ones the UK ought to be worried about.


Ymarsakar said...

It's the people who are threatening a jihad if he's allowed in Britain who are the ones the UK ought to be worried about.

But they aren't going to deport those. In fact, they are inviting more in while keeping the real riff raff, people who like things called liberty, out.

The British Lords actually have more balls than the British gov and people. Which is a funny state of events if you look back on their history.

If they have money to burn, the whole House of Lords and G could come to America and watch the movie. We're still a free nation, for now. Obama won't fund the operation, of course, so they are going to have to find other funds.

Anonymous said...

Britain no longer deserves to be considered a home of free men.

That about sums it up. Given the surveillance database state they are imposing on us, it is not a fit place for those who will not be sheep. I am ashamed of the behaviour of my government, but there is nothing I can do. They don't listen to the indigenous population any more, we are evil, ignorable, but taxable.

The judiciary and the police are thoroughly politicised (at least at the higher levels). Geert Wilders will not get justice on appeal, he will get the party line.

Anonymous said...

The suicides of a once great nation and its people are a terrible thing to see.

John Page said...

There is no "Secretary of State for the Home Department". At best this is a duff translation. Presumably this is meant to be a reference to moral midden Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary?

Anonymous said...

In the absence of leadership, the people must lead as the saying goes. If that means civil disobedience, so be it. If that means open defiance, so be it. And, if that means aggressive resistance, so be it. The survival and freedom of the individual Briton is superior to and utterly trumps ludicrous and insane polices of political correctness, especially when they are applied unilaterally and punitively for a select few and totally ignored for others. A free society cannot countenance ridiculous double standards and still possess legitimacy or credibility. Genuine freedom and liberty demands risk while so-called public tranquility requires silence, the silence of the police state and the tranquility of the prison cell.