Geert Out of Here
Dennis makes a good point about the Geert Wilders ban. As soon as “hate” becomes illegal, as it is in Britain, liberty doesn’t stand much of a chance.
But Wilders is a vulgar and nasty hate-merchant. I object to him being refused entry to the UK about as much as I oppose a bar refusing entry to a loud and rude drunk. (My opinion is not worth much, but this is what blogging is all about, right?)
What about free speech? Forget it. Britain has, since even before its inception, been a master of silencing dissent while posing as a bastion of freedom. In New Labour UK, police have been locking up and kicking out Muslims — often British citizens, unlike Wilders – who preach “hate” for some time now, and not all of them have been directly inciting violence.
The most convincing argument against the Wilders ban, surprisingly, is the one made by George Osborne, who said: “My personal view is by banning him [Wilders] in such a public way, he has been given far more publicity than would have been the case. I am not sure how thought-through this really was.”
Osborne has been attacked on the Right for not going far enough, but his tone is moderate and his language fair, which is more than can be said for the red-faced blustering of the Daily Telegraph. It is true that “Fitna”, Wilders’ petty-minded hate film, which can be watched on line, has been viewed far more in the last two days than if the Dutchman had been allowed to show his terror-porn in the House of Lords.
So when Wilders’ says that it’s a “sad day” for British democracy what he really means is that it’s a great day for Gert Wilders. And nobody wants that.
But Wilders is a vulgar and nasty hate-merchant. I object to him being refused entry to the UK about as much as I oppose a bar refusing entry to a loud and rude drunk. (My opinion is not worth much, but this is what blogging is all about, right?)
And that’s the point. Removing a Wilders-esque drunk from a bar is the owner’s prerogative, and he can choose his own criteria for doing so, but the state has no owner, and if it tries to filter out the obnoxious, it’s just trampling on the rights of those who invited those obnoxious folks, not to mention engaging in the worst kind of censorship.
Wilders has a rather monochromatic view of Islam, but if that were a crime Christopher Hitchens would be in the Tower of London as we speak, as would most of the rest of Team Atheist, half of team NeoConservative, and a good chunk of Team Catholic.
Wilders chooses his words badly and makes less nuanced points than most of these, but that’s why he should be allowed to go everywhere. He needs to be given free reign to speak all over, so that the erroneous parts of his idea (which comprise less than half, IMO) get torn up in open debate.
Ever since I saw the sketch on MAD TV on Geert the spaced-out Dutch exchange student boarding with an American family, the image attached to my Webster’s entry for that first name has been forever fixed.
Freddy Gray: unlike Wilders – who preach “hate” for some time now, and not all of them have been directly inciting violence.
Since when is truth hate? Have you ever heard of righteousness and justice?
I should have noted that Britain’s policies are Britons’ business, of course, and realize I don’t even know what legal protections there are in Britain (I’m like that guy who hears about someone getting sued for “hate-speech” in Canada and asks, “what about the First Amendment?!”).
Freddy Gray touches on an underappreciated aspect of the controversy. What about all those Muslims who would like to demonstrate they can take the rhetorical heat of the Western kitchen just like anyone else? Sec. Smith and a host of self-appointed “Muslim leaders” and “liberal” hand-wringers presume to speak, and limit speech, on behalf of an entire class of people.
In New Labour UK, police have been locking up and kicking out Muslims — often British citizens, unlike Wilders – who preach “hate” for some time now, and not all of them have been directly inciting violence.
The UK is deporting British citizens? Does the European Court of Human Rights allow this?
How is opposing the creation of a new very large minority and possible future new majority in one’s country, by definition, ‘hate’? The philosophy that says this is ‘hate’ is only sustainable by the majority if it opposes massive immigration at some point to maintain it’s majority. It’s madness. Opposing massive immigration is not, by definition, ‘Hate’, and change is not, by definition, ‘Good’. You have allowed liberals to define the argument. That’s the reason they are the new majority. Making my point for me…..
“Britain has, since even before its inception, been a master of silencing dissent while posing as a bastion of freedom”. How true! But there is more.
Britain does not have constitution, has no separation of church and state. Worse the head of the state is also the head of the army. Despite the general modernity of its inhabitants — legally — the British Isles do not differ much from a Caliphate! The British should get a modern constitution like the US’s before it is too late.
There is a double demographic bomb ticking under British modernity. (1) The growth of the Muslim minority is outpacing that of indigenous Britain which is Christian of Modern. (2) The future head of state has strong sympathies for Islam.
It is quite clear from even the most recent historical records as well as its holy books Islam has problems with modernity, particularly freedom of religion. Freedom loving European countries like The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries have every reason to worry about their future. America should too.
Hate speech? Racism? You must be joking!
As a thoroughly left-wing socialist British citizen I’m opposed to this stupid and ill-reasoned ban, which just serves to prove what a sad bunch of illiberal reactionaries we have running the show these days.
I’m be quite comforable with Wilders coming to Britain for a free an open debate on his race-hate theories, because I’m pretty confident that he wouldn’t stun us all with his well-argued eloquence and evidence-backed logic. But, sadly, the Brown Government has a lot less faith in the reason and intelligence of the average Brit that I do.
I have watched Geert Wilders film and to say he is a “hate-merchant” makes no sense at all. Mr Wilders has made it abundantly clear that racist and the like are not welcome at his meetings and showings of his film.
The lie multiculturalists give us is that “all cultures are equal” and we can all see that that is not true. Islamic culture is not equal to western civilisation, it is inferior just as the culture that existed in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia was inferior to western civilisation.
I find your attack on Geert Wilder to be gutless and might I add not based on fact or rational thinking.