Whether you agree or disagree with his views, Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament and as such has the right to travel in any EU country without hindrance. The fact is that Mr Wilders visited London only four weeks ago, so if it was OK to let him in then, why is it not so now?
Everyone, quite correctly is vaunting this as an attack upon the principles of freedom of speech, which it is, but it also has more sinister political undertones. The ruling labour party in the UK, failing as it is in the polls, is more dependent upon the Muslim vote than at any time in it's history. If the Muslim vote halted in its support for the labour party, it would be exposed to losing many seats in it's inner city strongholds and therefore would face electoral disaster. It would be highly likely that labour would go from being the current party of government, to being a marginalised third party after the next general election. So, labour cannot afford to upset it's Muslim vote, which would certainly happen if Geert Wilders had been allowed into the House of Lords to show his film, 'Fitna.' Consequently, in the face of Muslim anger, the government sacrificed one of the values that this society is based upon, 'freedom of speech.'
Let us take a look at why British Muslims were so upset about Mr Wilders visit.
Geert Wilders is an outspoken critic of Islam, who is beginning to be demonised as an extreme right wing politician, almost a Nazi! He certainly is not this, on many issues he is not even as right wing as Margeret Thatcher was in the 1980's
Fitna.
Just over a year ago, Mr Wilders made a film called Fitna
I have watched Fitna (which means - dissension, affliction, trial, sedition or civil strife ) and was very surprised to find that many of the Muslims who were on British TV last week denouncing this film being shown, had not seen it. I was amazed at how people who had not seen the film and therefore were not properly apparaised of its contents could possess such strong views about it. During Fitna, Mr Wilders never expresses an opinion himself, what he does through graphic imagery is to relate how it is that Muslim extremists can justify their horrific actions by relating those actions to relative verses within the Quran. Fitna is actually a tool to explain how extremist factions within Islam can draw an interpretation, which justifies killing non - Muslims. That is all it does! It does not demonise Islam in general terms, it does not attack all Muslims, it merely highlights the extremists and the hold they seem to have within certain factions of Islam at the moment.
Unless British Muslims do not want the extremists to be demonised, what then is the problem in showing the film? Oh, but wait a minute, most of them haven't seen it have they?
So when Lord Ahmed pops up on television and says that the film is an attack on Muslims, he is plain wrong. He is also wrong when he appears on Pakistani TV claiming that the Wilders ban is a 'victory for the Muslim community.' - It is not! What has happened here is that the British government has stated that it does not trust the Muslim community. Our home secretary feels that they cannot be trusted not to react in a violent manner and in banning Wilders she has denied Muslims the opportunity to debate with him. She has restricted the free speech of Muslims as well as that of Wilders and his supporters. Maybe there would have been the predicted 10,000 Muslims marching on Westminster, who knows? Maybe there would have been violence, who knows? Maybe there would have been Muslims weilding placards calling for all those who oppose Islam to be beheaded. - We have seen that before. But if it is these type of public disturbances that the ban was designed to prevent, it is still wrong. It is wrong because we will have been seen to give way in the face of the threat of such violence and that is the greates threat to freedom!
The death of free speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment