February 14th, 2009

Hold your tongue

Posted in Other Stuff by 200

So there was a little fracas over Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, who wanted to come over to good old Blighty to show his film on how Islam & the Koran are linked to terrorism. He was invited by Lord Pearson who’d arranged a private viewing of the film within the House of Lords.

I’ve not seen the film, “Fitna“, although I understand it is freely available on the internet, so I have no real idea what it’s about or what message it gives. The official line is that his views promote racial disharmony. The Dutch fella is apparently being prosecuted back in Holland for inciting racial hatred, the catch-all offence for anyone who doesn’t slavishly follow the current ‘diversity’ agenda.

The government did what they do best; their answer to anything they don’t like is to ban it. They duly banned Mr Wilders, who turned up at Heathrow, waited around, and was put on a flight back from whence he came.

Had the government done what they’re actually very good at; letting anyone with a serious criminal past into the country, & let Mr Wilders in, nobody would have been any the wiser. But now he has been given national media attention & millions of people will have heard about him & what he stands for rather than just a few old Lords.

As I said, I don’t know what his message is & frankly, I don’t really care, but I think he probably should be able to say it. It’s almost like the government don’t trust us to make up our own mind & come to a decent decision ourselves, no, the nanny-state has to protect us from this ill lest we all go out & want to murder the nearest Muslim.

Strangely, Mr Wilders has visited the UK previously, not that long ago. He had no trouble getting into the country & his views & those in the film were known then, so I’m not sure what changed from his visit two weeks ago to this week.

One of the problems I have with this whole issue, apart from the fact that free speech has long been assigned to history (and yes I do believe people should be able to say things we don’t want to hear) is the total hypocrisy of a government who won’t let someone in to the country because of what they think, but will allow someone into the country who has a conviction for murder, only to discover that whilst here they commit another. And it’s not even as if that is a rare event. There are thousands of foreign, evil, scumbag criminals in this country who the government appear to tacitly welcome with open arms. Convicted murder or rapist? no problem, want to come over to sell women & run a nice little earner of a sex-slave small business? Come on in. Don’t speak too highly of an ethnic minority? Sorry mate, we don’t want your kind here, fuck off.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0


  1. James says:

    I think the fact ‘Lord’ Achmed threatened to have 10,000 muslims march on the HoL had something to do with it. Basically, had Achemd kept his mouth shut, this would have stayed low key. Achmed gave a tour of the HoL recently to the ironically name, anti-semite, Israel Shamir. But that’s ok.

    Freedom of speech doesn’t exist because people are allowed to say ‘ok’ things, but for those people who say things that make your blood boil. There’s no point to saying we have free speech, if when put to the test we don’t allow it. Or rather, the government don’t. The best way to deal with Mr Wilders is to hear him out and openly debate and challenge him. Not to push it underground.

    February 14th, 2009 at 13:26

  2. 200 says:

    I watched the video last night, and found it quite interesting. I’d be further interested to know whether the Koran/Quoran really does say the alleged words & if so in what context.

    As to whether it will incites racial disharmony, I certainly don’t feel minded to go out & kick some Muslims & I wish the government would allow me the courtesy of trusting my moral judgement rather than banning me the opportunity to discuss such matters in a grown up fashion. As usual, it’s the lowest common denominator & rather than deal with the small amount of people who would cause trouble because of this film, just ban it, far easier & you have far more control over society.

    February 14th, 2009 at 14:29

  3. john says:

    Very interesting. Mind you, you can see why they banned the guy. Not because he is racist but because he spills the beans quite well. Well enough for me to go and have a further read:
    Even more interesting.

    Fitna: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0&feature=PlayList&p=77D6BC452CD47DDE&playnext=1&index=1

    February 14th, 2009 at 16:13

  4. Tony F says:

    I am afraid that any religious books are ‘slightly’ biased to the view of the writer, and even more so by the Translator. As you are probably aware there are quite a few differences in the translations of the bible. Enough for various factions to kill each other over. Let alone none believers. The Koran is even more biased than most and has been more ‘aggressively’ translated than many. Islam, like Christianity (which is a spin off from Judaism) is a peaceable religion. ONLY to other believers. Otherwise it’s convert or kill. You have to notice even factions within Islam delight in killing each other for no other purpose than to, well kill.

    February 14th, 2009 at 20:55

  5. MarkUK says:

    I keep having to defend the rights of Far-Right politicians. This is not something I feel comfortable about, but to do otherwise would make me a hypocrite.

    I actually believe in free speech.

    I’ve watched Fitna. Provided all the translations are correct (and I feel we’d know about it if they weren’t) then it’s simply fair comment.

    9/11, 7/7 & the Madrid bombings WERE carried out by Islamist fanatics.

    Where my views diverge from those of Wilders is that he blames all Muslims whereas I blame the militant Islamists. He wants to ban the Koran and I don’t (see above).

    What I do feel is that firstly too many Muslims wish to keep all their traditions even when they conflict with the majority in society, too many want their own little enclaves and that the influx of people from countries that don’t share traditions with Britain has happened too quickly.

    If 100,000 Aussies or Canadians came to Britain in a rush, they’d soon fit in. 100,000 Pakistanis wouldn’t. It’s got three fifths of damn all to do with colour – it’s to do with culture.

    Incidentally, many of these cultural differences (particularly the way women are treated) have nothing to do with Islam but are secular traditions predating Mohammed.

    February 14th, 2009 at 23:01

  6. Blueknight says:

    Whatever your ‘political’ view is, the story raises all sorts of questions. I think that if we had been fully in Europe, i.e. in the Schengen agreement, The Govt could not have stopped the MP from coming here,anymore than they could stop someone travelling from London to Manchester.
    But what about this


    I have not seen the film yet, but on the basis of what has happened here on 7/7 and around the world, there may be some truth in it.
    I seem to remember reading that a certain Winston Churchill had a hard time convincing the Govt that Hitler and the Nazi party were up to no good.

    February 15th, 2009 at 02:06

  7. James says:

    I think a lot of the problems we’re having is to do with the particular brand of Islam perpetuated by Saudi Arabia, namely Wahhabism. Which doesn’t seem to have any ambiguity about it. It is all about killing anyone – other muslims as well – who aren’t in it. It’s also about destroying muslim holy relics, which they’ve done over centuries.

    At the same time, this brand does seem to be taking hold fuelled by Saudi oil wealth. While we’re not letting this guy in, all kinds of poison is being spouted at mosques up and down the country – not all, but many. It’s influence by a foreign power in many respects.

    If you took any of these incidents involving muslims and did a word replace, using BNP, or Jewish – they’d be outrage, if the BNP said they’d “lay siege” (Lord Ahmed’s words) to Parliament, the last thing anyone would do is back down. Personally I think we backed down through fear of being attacked, of upsetting muslims.

    I agree that we don’t seem to want to wake up to the threat that is growing, and is a threat not only to non muslims, but also non wahhabi muslims too.

    February 15th, 2009 at 12:34

  8. Civ_In_The_City says:

    This thing about the government policy and it`s various outlets (police, NHS, anti-Social Services etc) going overboard to demonstrate their ‘right-on’ diverse credentials is something that can be debated endlessly. The major points in my mind are:

    1) The values that they are prepared to compromise in order to appear to ‘celebrate diversity’, (whatever that means). Freedom of speech, freedom of open debate, the christian heritage of this country that helped it to become the open bordered land of milk and honey that it unfortunately is.

    2. I read somewhere that each local council/authority has been made (by government) to sign a document that says they will strictly adhere to the ‘diversity’ agenda. I reckon this goes way beyond any legal requirement into social engineering territory. If councils DON`T sign this document (someone out there can confirm this) they run the risk of losing funding and even their entire authority. Can there be any other explanation for the perverse anti-social services standards and adoption policies we`ve been hearing about recently.

    February 15th, 2009 at 15:05

Leave a comment