Geert Wilders barred from the UK

[ynbniar]

If anything, this incident has provided him with way more press coverage than he would ever have gotten without this commotion, and I am convinced that even with all this extra attention he will not incite more hatred amongst muslims than a bird pooping on a stray Koran at Trafalgar Square.

Jelco

Isn't the problem that his message may well incite hatred towards Muslims not amongst them?

[strongdl]

What if, what he says about the Koran is true? I'm not saying it is, but it sounds like they are banning him based on the possible reaction to his arguments, rather than the validity of his arguments. As an aside, welcome to politcal correctness.

[MikeTheWookiee]

Well, you could argue that banning him has given him roughly 100X the publicity he'd get otherwise if he just came into the House, showed his film, and left again. He'll probably get in anyway sooner or later, officially or not...

The thing is, he was invited by a Peer from the UK Independence Party - for those not in the know they're generally anti-Europe, but with a hint of general racism thrown in on occasion too. He would most likely have been a supporter of the film's message, rather than of the principle that Wilders should be allowed to say what he likes. So, rather than a bit of publicity for the film, a possibility of some sort of protest in Westminster, and a small debate in the press, the whole thing is now going to rumble on for weeks, if not months. I have a feeling this was the plan all along.

[KingAl]

How can his statements bring muslims to commit violent acts? The only people who'll be affected will be those whose mind was made up anyway, especially considering the film will be shown in the frikkin' House of Lords, which is not the place anyone can (let alone will) simply walk into for fun.

I'd imagine, as ynbniar has suggested, that the concern is the film incites racial hatred against Muslims -- which could easily inspire the opposite, of course. The question is, even if it doesn't inspire racial hatred amongst those present at the House of Lords, why should they see a film with that potential? Why should its creator be invited to the House of Lords?

This, my friends, is censorship.

Does every man and his dog get to show films in the House of Lords? Avoiding censorship does not mean actively providing a platform to air and legitimise the views of men like Wilders.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I think it sends a very, very bad message that he was invited to show the film in the House of Lords. This is a film which sets out to prove that Islam is violent and supports terrorists. That's not a message that the House of Lords should be promoting.

While it is true that there is much violence committed by Muslims often in the name of their faith, that is true of virtually every other religion too. Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., even atheists commit violence in the name of their beliefs. To focus on Islam is just being intellectually lazy and xenophobic.


That said I don't know that banning him from entering the country was a good move. It gives him a lot of undeserved publicity and does set a poor example. However, baring him from the House of Lords would absolutely be the right thing to do.

[strongdl]

While it is true that there is much violence committed by Muslims often in the name of their faith, that is true of virtually every other religion too. Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., even atheists commit violence in the name of their beliefs. To focus on Islam is just being intellectually lazy and xenophobic.

Not quite the same. The Quran references Israelites in fairly hateful terms a number of times. But, noone minds that. When taken as the guiding principal for a country, ie. Iran, then it does become facist.

[Cooper42]

Whilst I'm thoroughly anti-censorship, the House of Lords is no place for this man and his film. (The House of Lords is no place for anything, at least political in my view, but that's another matter).

This guy is a nasty piece of work. Saying that he incites violence isn't necessarily wrong. You seem to have the wrong end of the stick in your original post, Jelco - it's not that he might encourage a muslim lash-out, though that's possible, it's that he may well mobilise some of the unsavoury bastards out there who would use his wildly inaccurate line of reasoning as an excuse to pound on muslims (read: anyone with dark skin). Inciting violence is a pitfall of any extremist nonsense, whether than be anti-Islamic or people calling upon Islam - both of which fail to have any nuanced or critical engagement with Islam.

As an alternative to censorship, these people should a) not be promoted in civil forums unless in a manner which encourages critical engagement and b) be drowned out by a public face of politics and the media which is against such sensationalist nosense (one can hope).

Rather than banning this guy (and thus fueling this guy's nonsense by encourage the notion of persecution which has helped the British far right travel as far as they have), it'd be far better if he was never invited and not even given the time of day by authorities. Ignoring someone en masse is far, far more effective than censorship.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Not quite the same. The Quran references Israelites in fairly hateful terms a number of times. But, noone minds that. When taken as the guiding principal for a country, ie. Iran, then it does become facist.

The Bible isn't all that polite about non-Israelites in place either, so I don't really see a significant difference. The amount of violence incited by the Old Testament is pretty amazing.

[Rkiver]

Not quite the same. The Quran references Israelites in fairly hateful terms a number of times. But, noone minds that. When taken as the guiding principal for a country, ie. Iran, then it does become facist.

The Bible isn't all that polite about non-Israelites in place either, so I don't really see a significant difference. The amount of violence incited by the Old Testament is pretty amazing.

Quite true.

Religion can be used to "justify" all sorts of idiotic and hateful behaviour due to it's very nature. Islam is no better or no worse then any other around.

[ynbniar]

I think the publicity aspect of this is moot...Wilders would have milked all the publicity he could if he had been allowed in to the UK and Parliament, so either way he was going to get publicity.

The govt realised this and decided it would be easier to ban him...yes they get accused of denying freedom of speech but when the speaker is Wilder who cares?

If they had let him in they would have opened themselves up to much more barbed criticism - pandering to an extremist, giving extremist views a platform, giving weight and substance to his views.

I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the govt had banned a radical muslim cleric from entering the UK with the intention of inciting hatred?

Critically, the danger in letting him in would be alienating and offending the Muslim community, the vast majority of which are not radical and do not agree with violent action.

Also, is this Wilders' dad...?

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I think it is very dangerous grounds when governments deny entry to people simply because they don't like what they say. This is not something governments should be deciding. They should let their citizens decide who to listen to and who to ignore. Happily it seems like almost everyone has decided to ignore this particular fool, so that's at least hopeful.

[moth]

Note that he was invited by a lords peer who is affiliated with the UK Independence Party - screwing up our relations with the rest of europe is their purpose in life.

[zjoere]

Note that he was invited by a lords peer who is affiliated with the UK Independence Party - screwing up our relations with the rest of europe is their purpose in life.

So you can actually get on official invite for the house of lords from only one peer ?

[ynbniar]

I doubt very much if he would have engaged in any kind of a debate had he been allowed in. This was all about publicity and as I mentioned before he and his cause would have got it either way.

I support the decision to ban him...it's not like his views are being censored, they are being reported and are widely available...he was banned because of the possible reaction to him being here. I think the "free speech" aspect of this is being simplified...we no more have the right to free speech as we have the right to do anything we please...one simple example given was a cinema - do you have the right to stand up half way through a film and tell the audience what happens next?

We are allowed free speech up to a point...we are allowed to do what we want up to a point...where the line is drawn determines how "free" a society is and I think the balance is correct in the UK.