We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Geert away from us

This is not the first time that the Home Office has used its discretionary powers to bar someone from entering the UK, nor surely will it be the last, but I cannot recall in my adult lifetime such powers ever being used against an elected, serving politician from a friendly, democratic country. And a member of the EU to boot!

Geert Wilders had been refused entry to the United Kingdom to broadcast his controversial anti-Muslim film Fitna in the House of Lords.

Mr Wilders said he had been told that in the interests of public order he will not be allowed to come to Britain.

Under normal circumstances, I would devote the rest of this article to speculation about the reasons behind this extraordinary decision. But, in this case, that would be redundant.

We all know why.

76 comments to Geert away from us

  • I am ashamed to be English. I have never said that before. I posted about this on the Kitty Kounter and it includes only the foulest language.

    I am fucking beside myself with rage.

    I am because that utter cunt Lord Ahmed has got his way without having to mobilise his troops. “Tits” Smith just caved like a souffle in a pantry. I know our Home Secs are invariably either incompetent or draconian but Smith is both and in fucking spades.

  • permanentexpat

    Why the surprize?
    You ought to know by now just what a midden of a country you’re living in…get a life.
    …and some piano wire.

  • This was somewhat predictable considering the way that Europe treated Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Wilders was sort of the anti-climax from this Americans perspective.

    The sad part is that Wilder never got a chance to bitch slap the BBC’s hypocrisy the way that Ms. Ali destroyed Avi Lewis in Canada.

  • guy herbert

    How is this not contrary to EU Law? Specifically, Directive 2004/38/EC:

    Preamble (31) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and freedoms and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In
    accordance with the prohibition of discrimination contained in the Charter, Member States should implement this Directive without discrimination between the beneficiaries of this Directive on grounds such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic characteristics, language, religion or beliefs, political or other opinion, membership of an ethnic minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation,

    The only valid grounds for refusing entry under the directive are public health,

    The only diseases justifying measures restricting freedom of movement shall be the diseases
    with epidemic potential as defined by the relevant instruments of the World Health Organisation
    and other infectious diseases or contagious parasitic diseases if they are the subject of protection
    provisions applying to nationals of the host Member State.

    or public policy or security,

    Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.

    The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.

    The ban arbitrarily adduces the above bolded criteria, but goes on to specify:

    “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.”

    If a broad appeal to “community harmony” is not a consideration of general prevention, specifically excluded as a ground, I do not know what is.

    Of course we also know that the present administration has no particular interest in obeying the law. Even were it not poisonous in other respects, that justifies every effort to remove it.

  • pete

    Disgraceful decision but the silver lining is the mockery it makes of EU membership.

    Representatives of the religion of peace simply let us know what we have to do to keep them peaceful and we do it.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I am ashamed to be associated with this country. What a fucking disgrace. Sorry for the swearing but what else can one say?

  • Does it not show the extraordinary tensions that the political establishment is experiencing?
    I expect rampant hypocrisy from every organ of the EU. I expect knee-jerk pandering to the Muslim minority in this country. What I did not expect was the Home Secretary banning a visit by a Dutch MP invited by the House of Lords.
    I’m afraid that I cannot restrain myself from feeling quite delighted. It’s nice to see the autocratic nature of the modern British state being made explicit.

  • dagamore

    Now the Dutch need to claim all UK residents are Persona Non-Grata in there country and give them 48 hours to leave, or face arrest.

    The UK Government invites Geert Wilders in and then has the balls to say; sorry we are scared of the ‘religion of peace’ so you have to stay out.

    Damn if only the Brits still had the balls they showed in WWII. But I guess all the Brits with Balls died/left/were run out. Sad to see that great country fall.

  • Gwp

    Enjoy this (Link)

    When you get to it, press Ctrl+f and type ‘Geert’

  • el windy

    I’m afraid this problem is not new and not because of the Muslim presence although it is religious in origin. For centuries in the UK “political” questions have been dealt with by presenting the interlocutor with a list from 1 – 10 and any disagreement or deviation from any one of those “principles” denies him/her a hearing. This goes way back to the Reformation and the left are the current most enthusiastic practitioners.
    My experience elsewhere has been that when I managed to look beyond the political label of the person standing before me I gained a great deal in both humanity and maturity and I stopped having my juvenile knee-jerk reactions to anything labelled “fascist”.

  • Andy

    Though the spineless reaction of this fascist govt is no surprise,in a way its a good sign,by imposing such a hypocritical decision the govt has let the cat out of the bag,they have to ban Mr Wilders because they know he is right and they have no argument to counter him.Slowly but surely the public are wising up both to the islamic threat and the totalitarian nature of the govt.

  • Steve

    A good example of the way in which Muslims rule through fear.

  • hennesli

    While I have little love for fascists like Geert Wilders this is indeed a worrying decision by the home office.

  • the other rob

    23 days until I’m out of here for good. Thank Christ!

  • Hennelsi,

    Seems to be ‘far-right’ or ‘fascist’ today applies to anyone supporting freedom of expression, free association, women’s rights, tolerance, free markets, democratic accountability and equality under the law, while objecting to Jew hatred, treating women as property, blatant racism, lies, civil violence, intimidation, clerical fascism, bigotry and intolerance. Wanna bet disliking genocidal theocracy and not hating Israel comes into it somewhere as well?

    Wilders is a liberal democrat with a firm commitment to the core values of western civilisation, but with equally firm views on the effect that islamic clerical fascism is having on that civilisation. Apparently that, and his not being at least a social democrat, is enough to have him smeared with the far-right label.

    For you to call him fascist demonstrates nothing other than you have no concept of either his principles or what constitutes fascism.

  • RAB

    Swear away Johnathan, I’m fuckin fuming here!

    Guess I must be a Fascist then cats.I ticked all the boxes in your first para.

    This is illegal.
    We are continually told, with much hand wringing by our Noble Government, that they would love to deport some hate filled bag of puss or other, who likes to spout death to Jews and other cute sayings like that, but they cant because the EU rules wont let them.

    But if Lord Ahmed threatens to bring 10,000 angry Muslims out on the streets, we get shit like this!

    Why hasn’t Lord Ahmed been arrested for incitement to civil disorder, by the way.

  • The other rob,

    You think it matters where you go? You seen what has been happening in Canada? You follow the last election in the US? You know that Australia is about to get one of those piece of shit bills of rights things?

    If you have a ticket to the moon you might be ok, but otherwise? There is nowhere to run to any more.

  • Golden Wonder

    Our MPs wouldn’t be interested in Wilders’ film anyway, they’re too busy fiddling their expenses to care about such trifles.

  • windy blow

    We have held our hands up in surrender, and bowed our heads to the prospect of muslim outrage and anger. Truth be damned; we are scared.

    Thus we are lost, thanks to our spineless, cowardly and useless government, who send this clear message about our freedom: We allow the muslim rabble rousers to say what they want, so that must prove we approve of free speech.

  • Why hasn’t Lord Ahmed been arrested for incitement to civil disorder, by the way

    snigger.

    Guffaw.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Because he will initiate civil disorder if he is of course.

    Now come on, you really don’t think the law applies to the likes of Jacqboots and her mates do you? If it did she might even be thrown in the slammer for fraud, and that only happens to the the rest of us.

  • hennesli

    [quote]Wilders is a liberal democrat with a firm commitment to the core values of western civilisation[/quote]

    is banning books a ‘core value’ of western civilisation?

  • is banning books a ‘core value’ of western civilisation?

    No, it is not, and that is my main reservation about Wilders.

    On one single occasion he advocated banning that repulsive paen of intolerance and incitement to violence by the evil old kiddie fiddler.

    Wilders was, at the time, drawing a comparison between Mein Kampf and the kiddie fiddlers fantasies, and arguing that as the one load of badly written hate mongering should be banned then for the same reasons the other should as well.

    That was a questionable act on his part, and one I don’t support. It is however, insufficient to label him a fascist.

    Might I suggest you examine the definition of fascism? You will find that free markets, freedom of association, plurality of thought and democratic accountability, as supported by Wilders, are not quite top of the list of fascist attributes.

  • I have read Mein Kampf. It’s awful. Badly written, rambling bilge. I have read the Qu’ran. Badly written rambling bilge. It’s quite amazing either of those shite-mongers ever got anywhere. Banning them is not the answer. The answer is folks reading them and thinking, “Badly written, rambling bilge”.

    I believe in freedom of expression. I, oddly enough, believe this also applies to those who would limit freedom of expression if they had their way. Whether it be censors of MoToons, Geert Wilders, Mary Whitehouse or Christian Voice raising Cain over “Jerry Springer the Opera”. Come one, come all! Just don’t expect to be taken seriously by the rest of us.

  • llamas

    1) I find it interesting that only one of the 4 UK large-sheet newspapers has this story on their online front page – it is ‘The Independent’, if anyone cares to check. And their story describes Wilders as the ‘far-right’ leader of a ‘small’ Dutch political party.

    So it would seem that the exclusion of a democratically-elected legislator from a democratic nation with which the UK is supposed to have special political relationship, purely because of his political/social views, is a story so utterly lacking in newsworthiness that 3 of the 4 major opinion-forming newspapers in the Uk decided that it was not worth reporting.

    A little later than predicted, but thoughtcrime has now apparently become part of the UK’s normal mode of government.

    2) The attempts (here and elsewhere) to justify the exlcusion of Wilders because his past statements, eg his thoughts about banning the Koran, are somehow at variance with ‘core values of Western civilization’, or because he is somehow hypocritical, shows how clearly the UK has lost the plot.

    I don’t care whether he’s a hypocrite – maybe he is. I don’t care if his values are not those of ‘Western civilization’ – maybe they’re not. I don’t care what he thinks, or what he says. What he thinks, or what he says, simply are not grounds to deny him the right to go whether he wants and say what he wants.

    To restrict what he may do or where he may go because what he thinks or what he says may cause others to protest their opposition is to legitimise ‘the heckler’s veto’ – to give in to the threat of disruption and violence. In this way, you essentially abdicate the right of expression to the preferences of whatever mob happens to be dominant at that moment. It shows that the Government will trade away his rights, or your rights, or anybody’s rights, for a quiet life free of disruptions. If he is excluded to day for what he thinks and what he says, then you, or anyone, can be similarly silenced tomorrow. And he is just the thin end of the wedge – what many people believe, about a whole host of issues, is deeply offensive to many Muslims. Today – Geert Wilders. Tomorrow – gay rights. The day after that – women’s clothing. And so it will go.

    In the instant case, the Islamists have now learned that they can quite-easily get anything they want from any European government The mere threat of opposition is sufficient to cause the state to quickly move to exclude anything that might offend. Anything. It is, in fact, a power more-effective than anything that these people might have gained through legitimate political processes.

    Kamerlid Wilders should instead bring his movie to the US, where his right to speak as he thinks is somewhat-more-robustly defended.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Llamas,

    You are being a bit absolutist here. If the bloke were inciting physical violence against some group I would not be able to agree with you. In such a case someone can legitimately be kept out.

    But at the moment I am simply objecting to the modern policy of labelling anyone who isn’t a socialist as far right. It is a smear and it stinks.

  • Grateful Dredd

    Islam: Mary Whitehouse with a baseball bat.

  • llamas

    I don’t even buy so much the argument about ‘inciting’ violence against others – it leaves the state free to define what constitutes ‘incitement’ Ever since the Race Relations Act and its pitiful offspring, this excuse has been used to silence those whose opinions are merely inconvenient.

    And this excuse is too-easily turned on its head, to silence those whose opinions may cause others who disagree to resort to violence. That is the exact, if unstated, message here – Kamerlid Wilders’ opinions may cause those who oppose him to take to the streets and perhaps to riot. Well, the correct response of the civil power to the threat of a riot on such terms is to quell the riot – to suppress those who lack the self-control to tolerate the differing opinions of others, not to suppress the free expression of a mere opinion.

    If this thinking were applied in other spheres, for exmaple, the state would simply ban football matches because they sometimes cause fans to break out into violence and mayhem. Alcohol would be banned because some folks can’t hold their liquor (this would also please the Islamists, so a double win there). Gays would be banned from the streets because, after all, their lifestyle sometimes causes others to attack them. Seems reasonable to you? Of course not. Yet HMG has just banned a man from entering the country becasue his opinions may cause others to lose their self-control.

    The best words ever written on this matter:

    ‘ . . . . that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of the tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. . . . .

    Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be . . . . enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, (or) otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. ‘

    This should be tattooed on the right forearm of the Home Secretary, for easy reference.

    llater,

    llamas

  • There is scarcely a day goes past that my decision to bail out of the UK when Blair won the 1997 election does not seem to be one of the better ones I ever made. When I read blogs like this one or Burning Our Money, I look aghast at what has happened in little over a decade. I see two, almost equally dreadful prospects ahead: either the country sinks ever further into desuetude and submission to the Mohammedans, or the backlash is so long delayed that when it arrives it is fuelled by so much anger that there is a pogrom. Has there been any episode in time of peace for 300 years when one can honestly say that one fears for one’s countrymen – or one’s family? Even if, as seems inevitable, Labour is roundly defeated at the next election, there is no plausible opposition party that is prepared to row us back to an acceptable position vis-a-vis Europe, Islam and multiculturalism. The country is, as the excellent Harry Hutton said, not going to the dogs. It has arrived at the dogs. The dogs are all about us, yapping and snarling.

  • Dutch Guy

    BREAKING NEWS!

    We in the Netherlands have just been informed that member of Dutch parliament Geert Wilders will charter a plane tomorrow and travel to the UK. He commented:

    “Let’s see if they will arrest and cuff me.”

  • Jack Olson

    The same country which permitted the production and distribution of a fictional movie about the assassination of President Bush and another about the trial of Prime Minister Blair says that “in the interest of public order” it can’t risk admitting Geert Wilders to the country. Until now, I thought the only coward in Britain was Noel.

  • Laird

    Llamas, I understand your point and in general agree with it. However, to me there is a significant difference between someone whose views are considered offensive by others to the point that they begin to riot (as you noted, the proper response of the civil authorities would be to quell the riot) and someone (such as certain fundamentalist Muslim Imams) who uses his authority to issue fatwas calling for the murder of specific persons, or advocates jihad and the killing of “infidels”, or in general directly incites his followers to violence. Such persons should be expelled from the country or (preferably) prevented from entering it in the first place. It’s not too difficult to differentiate between the two.

    We have a right to incarcerate or expel violent criminals, and we have the same right with respect to those who harbor, enable, or directly incite such actions. The fact that the argument for expulsion/exclusion can be “turned on its head” (by the incompetent, intellectually lazy, disingenuous or wicked) is no refutation of the argument itself; it merely demonstrates that we must defend it against misapplication.

  • llamas

    Laird – I think we agree generally, just not on where the line is drawn.

    Sanctions upon ‘incitement’ always end up in angel-on-pin-head arguments about just what constitutes ‘incitement’. And – IMNSVHO – such questions will always end up being resolved by the State in the way which are the least-inconvenient to the State – as we see here. For a fine example of how silly this can get, you might read the account of the suit brought by Professor Harold Laski against the Newark Advertiser, where the suggestion that Laski had incited violence turned on whether he said ‘the answer lies in blood’ or ‘the answer lies in the blood.’ On such tiny trivia are such decisions made – far too subtle for the Juggernaut that is the State. Especially the Socialist state, where theories of dialectic teach that the suppression of ‘wrong’ speech and thought is acceptable and sometimes even required.

    I’m more of the opinion expressed above, that ‘ . . . .it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order . . . .’ with the accent on ‘overt’.

    On a different note, the other unexplored aspect of the affaire Wilders is the concept of prior restraint – Wilders is to be banned from the UK despite the fact that he has never said or done anything in the UK which is illegal or ‘offensive’ – SFAIK. Again, we have the prospect of persons being sanctioned for things said and done in other places, at other times, which were not illegal in those places and likely not illegal had they been said or done in the UK. The Home Secretary now has the power, apparently, to exclude anyone for any reason, or no reason, just as (s)he sees fit, with neither due process nor the presumption of innocence.

    Today – Geert Wilders. Tomorrow – You.

    llater,

    llamas

  • PersonFromPorlock

    Well, moral outrage is OK but at this point you need to be able to put eleven thousand demonstrators – with bats – in the streets. Push has come to shove.

  • It is time to organize an escourt for Geert Wilders for his plain to the floor of the house. Get cracking chaps. If you can get a large crowd to escourt him all the way. The muslems will back off.

  • C Powell

    A fucking outrage, as others have said. Britain as a free country is dying before my eyes.

    I’m quite certain that if Wilders were to challenge the ban in the courts he would win. Apparently he’s turning up tomorrow with Dutch journalists; he needs the name of a good lawyer and instant action to judicially review the decision. I hope he does and dares the spineless political class to face down the bullies. And I hope that the Dutch government continues to make an issue of it.

    But if not, then more drastic action will need to be taken against the enemy within because I for one am not going to allow the Islamofascists, their supporters and appeasers to win. My parents’ generation had to fight Fascism and it looks as if I and my children will have to do the same.

    As for Labour, they are beneath contempt: this is a dog whistle to the only people left who will vote for them. Like the last dog whistle (BJFBW) let’s hope it comes back to bite them and hard.

    Interesting too how quiet Shami is when real issues of liberty are at stake.

  • Subotai Bahadur

    Jim Treacher @ 0321 hrs. 11 February.

    Sir, I am so stealing that formulation. Credit will be gratefully given for the use.

    Person From Porlock & Steph on 11 February 1954 and 2017 hrs.

    If there were enough Brits, with goolies intact, to do something like that, it would give hope for a future for Britain. But I have grave doubts. If such were to occur, you would likely see your old Riot Act reinstated by Ministerial order [*] and read against any such escort [and not any Muslim mob] and I would not be surprised to see a re-enactment of the Peterloo Massacre.

    [*] – It is my understanding that your Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act of 2007 allows Ministers to create, amend, or repeal law without reference to Parliament or Crown.

    In the absence of any tangible demonstration of will by the British public, I will have to regretfully go with the al-Bion formulation.

    Subotai Bahadur

  • tdh

    Doesn’t the House of Lords have anything analogous to impeachment trials?

  • tdh: nope. Bearing in mind that Jacqboot Smith has been sailing pretty close to the wind with her housing expenses and will still almost certainly keep her job, the prospect of her suffering any genuine fallout over this latest illiberal outrage is negligible. She should have been out on her ear after the Damian Green affair, but you couldn’t prize her fingers off the levers of power with a crowbar. This lot are so utterly shameless that you have to wonder whether they will voluntarily relinquish parliament when the time comes (and here I am only being very slightly hyperbolic).

  • Well, moral outrage is OK but at this point you need to be able to put eleven thousand demonstrators – with bats – in the streets. Push has come to shove.

    Well I’m up for it… when and where?

  • perlhaqr

    Treacher: “al-Bion”. Ouch.

    Powell: “Britain as a free country is dying before my eyes.”

    Dying? You give the Formerly Great Britain too much credit, I think. It looks dead from over here, but perhaps you’re close enough to poke it with a stick and see if it moves.

  • permanentexpat

    I am ashamed to be associated with this country. What a fucking disgrace. Sorry for the swearing but what else can one say?

    Posted by Johnathan Pearce at February 11, 2009 08:11 AM

    If I remember correctly, I was coals overhauled on these pages some few years ago for expressing a similar sentiment.
    It pleases me to see so many pennies dropping as the awful truth finally sinks in…and the number of you planning to leave shouldn’t surprize me.
    The ‘bad’ news, however, is that the poster who said there’s nowhere left to run, has it about right.
    As mentioned, the rot runs in OZ & NZ too…Canada, oh Canada…(read the tribulations of Mark Steyn)…although those affected haven’t woken up yet to what’s happening behing their backs…Lucky countries sleep-walking like their old mums back in The Septic Isles into the arms of Nanny who runs the Nursery…(for Russians, read Gulag)
    Socialist governments everywhere, when elected, have one single priority…and that is to garantee their power-base by populating, at any cost, the public sector & public media with placemen & jobsworths who will ONLY vote Socialist, come what may….anything else is very low on the priority list.
    (Those of you who have wondered why one seldom meets a ‘straight’ flight attendant will see a parallel here…the formula is the same)
    The USSR may be extinct but its dogma & raison d’être
    lives on…the treason of some of the brightest of 30s Cambridge graduates has been emulated in these islands since the advent of the Atlee govt….and they’re still burrowing away today with a patience which Job would envy…& believe me, they do not intend to lose.

  • the other rob

    CountingCats – You think it matters where you go? You seen what has been happening in Canada? You follow the last election in the US? You know that Australia is about to get one of those piece of shit bills of rights things?

    If you have a ticket to the moon you might be ok, but otherwise? There is nowhere to run to any more.

    Probably not, in the long term, but sod Keynes. I just need rural Texas to stay this side of lunacy until I die. 40 years should do it.

  • Gordon

    Presumably the cause of bank robberies is the fact that banks keep their cash locked up in strongrooms rather than outside on the pavement in wheelie bins, where people could help themselves without having to use regretable, if understandable, threats of force?

  • Sterph

    It is not to late act now. God Save the Queen

  • boqueronman

    I thought I’d share this pithy comment from the folks at Maggie’s Farm blog on this situation:

    “No Wilders, but look at the creeps England does allow in [http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/02/our-mother-country-is-dying.html]. And they want to ban the flag [http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/st-george-banned.html]. Why don’t they all just get it over with and shoot themselves. Oh, they can’t. They gave away their guns.”

  • Johnathan Pearce

    permanent, if I recall correctly, I hauled you over the coals, so to speak, for some rather blood-curdling remaks you made in support of the the use of indiscriminate area bombing in WW2, if I recall. Separate issue.

    I think the problem with folk who say, on issues like the Geert Wilders one, that “you Brits should all get out” etc, is that many other parts of the world seem to be succumbing to similar problems.

  • virgil xenophon

    And speaking of guns——

    I was going to reply to “Cats’ ” statement that there is nowhere else to go by saying that at least we here in the US still have our guns–but upon further reflection on the innumerable new laws being proposed by leftists in Congress feeling their oats which would have the functional equivalent of side-stepping the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment via onerous regulation and new taxes on ammunition, etc.,–that I’m now thinking perhaps “Cats” is right about the Moon and we’d all best be calling Burt Rutan and asking him to make the design for his next new civilian space-ship an extra heavy-duty, king-sized passenger model–a troop transport for ex-pats.

  • llamas

    Geert Wilders flew to the UK this morning (US time) with a large entourage of reporters, and was immediately taken into custody upon his arrival at Heathrow.

    The NL newspaper De Telegraaf is live-blogging and -picturing his progress – look here

    http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/3239465/__Slideshow__Wilders_komt_Engeland_niet_in__.html?p=3,1

    It’s in Dutch but the images are pretty self-explanatory.

    The diplomatic exchanges between the NL and UK governments are getting pretty stiff, too.

    Folks, this is what you have to look forward to. This man is an elected legislator of a friendly government. He would normally be accorded the most courteous, even privileged, welcome to the UK. Yet your government is so totally p*ss-pants terrified of Islamist opposition that they will frog-march this man away at the airport, prepratory to tossing him out of the country.

    If they’ll do that to him – what will they not do to you, to ensure a quiet life?

    llater,

    llamas

  • virgil xenophon

    PS to PersonFromPorlock:

    Having once lived in Louisville, Ky., for almost twenty years, I have plenty of good,
    old fashioned wooden Louisville Slugger commemorative models on hand, so I’m ready–all I need is a plane ticket. But I would advise on aluminum bats instead–the whip action is better with the lighter bats.

  • llamas

    With an escort of ± 10 UK immigration officers (presumably to ensure that this elected legislator from a friendly nation did not run amok in the terminal and start randomly attacking persons of Muslim appearance – you can never be too careful with rabid extremists like that, you know!) Geert Wilders has now been put on a plane back to Amsterdam.

    For shame. Shame on you, you pusillanimous pantywaists, for letting this happen in your name without so much as a whimper of protest.

    Bah!

    llater,

    llamas

  • James

    Someone above said…

    …Formerly Great Britain…

    Before I make my main point, I really am getting bored of people who don’t understand the many meanings of the word ‘great’, which in the context of ‘Great Britain’ relates to something entirely distinct from being magnificent.

    Anyway…

    I haven’t really heard any scepticism expressed about the Dutch government’s ‘protestations’ about Mr Wilders bar from the UK.

    Does anybody else think that the reason for their stance is more to do with trying to keep a lid on his profile domestically and limit making him a ‘martyr’ for his cause (knowing that it would all blow up – as it has- if the Home Office persisted in maintaining the ban), rather than defending the sanctity of a visiting parliamentarian. This is, after all, the same government that is prosecuting him for his beliefs.

  • Subotai Bahadur

    The struggle for liberty in the old world has traditionally been a fight to be governed by Laws and not Men. The means has been primarily been a form of representative democracy balanced with the input of representatives of established interests, to create laws that ALL were subject to, including the government [and the Sovereign, if such existed].

    The nation of al-Bion, formerly Great [in both senses] and now Humble Britain; has not only lost that struggle, but they have meekly surrendered to rule by those for whom the documents that comprise the British Constitution are mere wads of Andrex. It does not matter what the law says. What counts is what the various miscreants, maladroits, and unindicted co-conspirators in the various nooks and crannies of the Government want in any situation.

    If this is tolerated [and I readily admit that I have no idea of how to influence your government, because they seem to pretend that the populace does not exist] then the only question is whether you will surrender completely to the Ummah or the EU first. Given the fact that this is in violation of both EU law and a number of treaties ….. I’m betting on the Caliphate.

    Subotai Bahadur

  • lucklucky

    Senil Albion

  • Subotai Bahadur

    To add further insult to a disgusting situation: I have discovered that the Church of England, which has called for the imposition of Sharia Law in Britain, has just made a decision in General Synod. CoE Clergy are now barred from involvement in the British Nationalist Party. Presumably because they are insufficiently submissive to their new masters. al-Bion indeed.

    Subotai Bahadur

  • permanentexpat

    Jonathan: I’m unable to find the offending text…maybe you can point me to it…but I did find this, which is as true today as it was then:

    Alisa:
    Unfortunately I do.

    As an aside: During the years I have been visiting these pages, sometimes commenting, sometimes being threatened with expulsion for calling a spade what it is, often filled with envy at the use of good good prose & argument….I have reached the conclusion that many of the contributors are folk with clout…or who know or who are connected to those who have it.
    Sadly, I see no evidence of this influence being used to change the suicidal course of events. Imagine…….

    Posted by permanentexpat at November 21, 2007 11:53 PM

  • Gareth

    Geert Wilders claims he had lunch at the House of Lords in December.

    If they let him in then how has he suddenly become a threat?

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Permanent, I am gratified that you think I have clout, but alas I am just a guy who works in the financial/media world, of no more or less influence over affairs than millions of others. Let’s face facts: I am an opinionated guy with access to a blog. That’s all. Of course, I really do hope that our views are filtering out slowly, but let’s not delude ourselves about our influence over events in anything other than the long term, by which time we will either be dead of in cryonic suspension.

  • lucklucky

    Appeasement commercials in Pakistan:

    “Don’t attack us please, UK ads to say on Pak TV”

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/dont-attack-us-please-uk-ads-to-say-on-pak-tv/421654/

  • Gosh, lucklucky, I should have followed that link before lunch…

  • permanentexpat

    Permanent, I am gratified that you think I have clout,……..

    Not quite what I wrote, Jonathan, but I hope it gives you a nice warm feeling ;-))

    ..I have reached the conclusion that many of the contributors are folk with clout…or who know or who are connected to those who have it.
    Sadly, I see no evidence of this influence being used to change the suicidal course of events. Imagine…….

    Be that as it may, I share your hope, forlorn though it is, that the views articulated here will filter through to those who matter. Problem is, those who currently matter are a bunch of unmitigated & mendacious shits bent on the final destruction of personal freedom.

    I had thought that experience of Britain falling apart economically, layoffs etc. might have jarred the comatose burghers into realizing that something is wrong…but they’re still in the grip of ‘bread & circuses’.
    I don’t know what it’s going to take for the inevitable wake-up to register…it could well be wet & sticky.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Reading these comments is rather like listening to a field full of bleating sheep.

    “I am outraged!”

    Yeah, right. Like that’ll have any effect on anything. Whether you like it or not, you had better get used to the idea of adapting to the creeping Islamification of Britain.

    In another comment elsewhere on this blog, @Veryretired drew our attention to this when he wrote:

    “An ancient enemy confronts us—absolutist theology which justifies anything and everything it does by proclaiming its alignment with instructions directly from god.”

    This ancient enemy has slipped past you unawares, because of its low availability heuristic. That is the enemy that the West does not seem to have a solid defence against – a systemic cancer (per Atatürk) in society. Sun Tzu wrote about the need to “know the enemy”. That still seems like good advice.

    The question is: If it is true – as @veryreserved stated elsewhere on this blog, that:

    “Only free, confidently independent men and women will be able to endure such a confrontation and prevail.”

    - then, exactly how could this “prevailing” be brought about? I would suggest that standing around passively bleating whilst feeling free and confidently independent might not achieve very much.

    That original “Islamophobe” saw it all – he was William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898) who was Prime Minister of Great Britain four times: 1868–74, 1880–85, 1886 and 1892–94. He called the Qur’an an “accursed book” and once held it up during a session of Parliament, declaring: “So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.”

    My, how times have changed! Now the votaries of the book he saw as such an impediment to peace have triumphed: an Islamic reading room has been set up at the library Gladstone founded near his home in North Wales.

    So, Blighty, have a nice, strong cuppa tea and get ready to Submit. Once you do, I’m sure you’ll all be able to come to terms with the new regime and see that it’s really not so bad after all.

    Salaam, my brothers.

  • It’s turning into the chorus of a fucking Greek tragedy around here.

    The gubbermint dropped a spectacular bollock with the Wilder’s ban. A massive testicular fuckeration.

    It was inevitable. It was inevitable because the more anyone of reasonable sense finds out about Islam, the more they see it as a vicious, nasty, petty cult of a very nasty man indeed. And I suspect more Brits watched Fitna yesterday than all put together before that.

    For every demented bitch like Yvonne Ridley there will be 50 people repulsed by it.

    Look… Nobody gave a flying toss about Islam until 20 years ago tomorrow (guess what happened then?) and OK, it’s been slow and there are enemies within “our” camp such as the multi-culti shits, pissed-pants cowards like “Tits” Smith and the lefties who just hate The West with such deranged conviction that they’ll ally with Satan himself and suck his thorny cock and call it good.

    But… the further the Islamists push the more resistors they will generate.

  • So … when do the violent bigoted idiots that are being used as an excuse to deport Geert going to be deported for being violent bigoted non-citizens?

    ( sound of crickets chirping )

    Since when has it become a bad idea to bar entry to barbarians? Ban Geert, but let in violent misogynistic cultists?

  • Slartibartfarst

    @Kristopher:
    Crikey! You know, until you mentioned them, I had not heard those crickets chirping – the sheep were bleating so loudly the sound must have been smothered. Now that the sheep have gone silent, those crickets seem almost deafening by comparison. I think this might be the sound of impotence.

    @Nick M:
    20 years ago on the 14th Feb.? Full of anticipation, I searched the BBC’s website for “On this day” and came up with two likely events:

    1. Belfast lawyer Finucane murdered:

    Leading solicitor Pat Finucane has been shot dead at his home in north Belfast.
    The killers burst in as he was eating his Sunday dinner with his wife and three children.
    Two gunmen showered him with 14 bullets and shot his wife in the ankle.

    2. Ayatollah sentences author to death:

    Iranian Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini has issued a death threat against British author Salman Rushdie and his publishers over the book Satanic Verses.

    I can’t see that the Finucane murder…oh, right.

  • Paul Marks

    I do not agree with Mr Wilders on all things – for example on his view that the Koran should be banned.

    However, he is a brave and honourable man (not some sort of monster that we should support “because even a monster should have free speech” or whatever).

    For those who doubt that Mr Wilders is a brave and honourable man I urge you to listen to his interview on the B.B.C. Radio Four programme “The Choice”.

  • Paul Marks

    I do not agree with Mr Wilders on all things – for example on his view that the Koran should be banned.

    However, he is a brave and honourable man (not some sort of monster that we should support “because even a monster should have free speech” or whatever).

    For those who doubt that Mr Wilders is a brave and honourable man I urge you to listen to his interview on the B.B.C. Radio Four programme “The Choice”.

  • Pa Annoyed

    I’m not entirely convinced that Geert actually does want the Koran banned. I think he was saying that it met the criteria for being hate speech that under Dutch law would require it to be banned. He was demanding they apply their laws consistently – and in a way showing up how ridiculous the hate speech laws really are. Whether it is acceptable to advocate banning a book even to make a rhetorical point to people who believe in banning other books, I leave to others to decide.

    I seem to remember a quote of his elsewhere that said in effect he would prefer it if no books were banned, but I don’t remember where. So take that as you will.

  • ‘zactly Pa. That was just what I thought…

    He does though have very strange hair. How’s about the next time some loony Islamist is allowed into the UK to preach the usual litany of “Death to the Zionist-entity, America is eviiiil, string-up queers” and all the fucking rest we mobilise ten thousand folks with “Wilders Wigs”.

    It would be quite a sight.

  • Where were your civil liberties people ?

    Why cannot a private prosecution be mounted against the bureaucrats who forbade Wilders entry ?

    This is a constitutional issue….

  • NJ.Dawood

    As an Imam and a translator of the Qu’ran, I know that this is not a constitutional issue. It is an issue regarding the Believers and the non-believers.

    Islam will purify us all.
    Geert Wilders will go the way of all flesh.
    Allah is Great.

  • NJ.Dawood, and as I wrote in another comment, yes Geert Wilders will go the way of all flesh but so what?

    Fitna will still be on the internet long after Geert Wilders, and you, are gone. Ponder that one, mate.

  • Slartibartfarst

    Way to go Perry dH!!
    Total logical destruction!
    The whole Islamic faith just disappeared in a puff of non-sequiturs.