So long as we’re talking about Muslims, let’s peek in on Geert Wilders, a controversial outspoken anti-Islamist and member of the Dutch Parliament, who was recently sent home from England as a threat to security.
LONDON – A Dutch member of Parliament who has compared the Koran to “Mein Kampf” and blamed Islamic texts for inciting the 9/11 attacks was detained by immigration officials at Heathrow Airport on Thursday and forced to board the next flight back to the Netherlands. His deportation had been ordered by Britain‘s home secretary on the grounds that his presence in Britain endangered public safety.
The lawmaker, Geert Wilders, had been invited to the House of Lords for a screening of his film “Fitna,” which caused outrage in the Muslim world after it appeared on the Internet last year. It juxtaposes images of the Koran with reports of the 9/11 attacks, as well as gruesome images of the Madrid bombings in 2004, the London transit attacks in 2005 and other atrocities. It also suggests that parts of the Koran have contributed to provoking violence by Muslim extremists.
“This is something you’d expect from Saudi Arabia, not Britain,” he said before his [return] flight.– NY Times
Fascinating that a hate monger and agent provocateur like Wilders should have a better grasp on the meaning of freedom than the British government. Despite his legitimate claim as a visiting dignitary from a neighboring nation, the Brits ousted his ass out of fear of spooking the population. Basically, Wilders was tossed out because what he has to say is unpopular.
Lord Pearson, an Eton-educated former insurance executive, said the invitation to Mr. Wilders offered him a platform to provoke “violence and hatred” against Muslims in Britain, the vast majority of whom disavowed terrorism. He said Mr. Wilders’s insistence on free speech masked the fact that he was “a provocateur and publicity seeker” with contempt for what Lord Ahmed described as “the great majority of Muslims who want to have the freedom to practice their religion without being insulted and threatened.”
Classic liberalism, steeped in Earl Grey. Protect minorities by prohibiting their offense, even if it comes at the cost of silencing free expression. In this country, it’s called “political correctness,” foisted on the larger population by eye-rolling liberal fanatics with roots in the ivory tower. It’s as wrong as wrong can be. It turns us into them, using them as a pretext.
Let’s give the last word to the British press, eloquently deploring their government’s action:
For all the obvious hollowness of Mr Wilders’ credentials as a defender of free speech, the cause is a good one. It is a common notion that the right to free speech must be held in balance with the requirement to avoid needless offence. That is a mistake. The right to oppose, mock, deride and even insult people’s beliefs is essential to a society where bad ideas are superseded by better ones. There is no right to have one’s emotional sensibilities protected, for it is no business of government to legislate for people’s feelings. Mr Wilders’ views are obnoxious, and (not but) his freedom to express them must be defended. It is regrettable that Mr Wilders faces not just ostracism but prosecution in the Netherlands because of his comments about Islam. — Times of London