The British government has refused entry to Geert Wilders, the leader of the populist Freedom Party. The British authorities said beforehand that Geert Wilders would not be allowed to enter the country, but the MP decided to board a flight to London anyway. At the airport, he was detained by Customs officials who advised he would have to return to the Netherlands immediately.
|
Geert Wilders on plane at Heathrow (centre right)
Photo: Joris Polman
|
Speaking to Reuters from the airport, Mr Wilders said
"I am in a detention centre at Heathrow ... I am detained. They took my passport. I will not be allowed to enter the country. They will send me back within a few hours."
Mr Wilders, who is about to stand trial in The Netherlands for inciting hatred towards Muslims, on Wednesday received a letter from the British Government banning him from entering the United Kingdom.
Invited by Lord
Mr Wilders was invited by a member of the House of Lords, Lord Pearson of the UK Independence Party, to show his 17-minute film Fitna. The film is a collage of Qur'an verses, footage of terrorist attacks and images of Islamic symbols.
The British refusal to deny entry to a Dutch MP has been condemned by Dutch parties from across the political spectrum. Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen appealed unsuccessfuly to the British government to reconsider its decision. He said the Dutch ambassador to Great Britain, Pieter Willem Waldeck, would meet Mr Wilders when he arrived in London, to offer help if necessary. Later, the ambassador told Dutch journalists he had done everything possible, but to no avail.
On Wednesday, parties from all sides of the Dutch political spectrum expressed their outrage over the British ban, although few MPs agree with Mr Wilders' islamophobic views. The parliamentarians, however, stress the point that anyone within the European Union should be free to travel and to express his or her views.
On Thursday afternoon, when it was confirmed that Mr Wilders would not be allowed to enter the UK, the parliamentary leader of the Conservative VVD Party, Hans van Baalen, told Dutch news agency ANP that Sir Winston Churchill, the champion of free speech, would be "turning in his grave." He wants the Dutch foreign minister to summon the British ambassador to the Netherlands and deliver a formal protest at the treatment of Mr Wilders. He also wants the Mr Verhagen to raise the issue at the next meeting of EU foreign ministers. The VVD's position was echoed by the Dutch Labour Party. Labour MP Jeroen Dijsselbloem called it an 'idiotic situation'.
Radical views
The British government has barred him from entering the country on the grounds that his radical views on Islam "would threaten community harmony and therefore public security".
Geert Wilders published the letter on his website and responded on his website,
"Great Britain is sacrificing freedom of speech. You would expect something like this to happen in countries like Saudi Arabia, but not in Great Britain. This cowardly act by the British government is a disgrace. I was invited by a British member of parliament."
Extremism
In a statement, the British Home Office (interior ministry) said it intends to
"stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country."
Tags:
freedom of expression,
Geert Wilders,
Islam,
Qur'an
fantazamaraz,
16-02-2009
- uk
Ridiculous......Jacqui Smith has apoointed herself as the parental censor of the British people.......we are quite capable of deciding for our ourselves what we consider right or wrong. Banning free speech in the land of Shakespeare and Dickens makes us appear a mockery to freedom. ! No one should be prevented from speaking their mind.
" I may disagree with what you say,
but I will fight to the death your right
to say it. "
(Voltaire)
Gary,
14-02-2009
- USA
I've seen FITNA. It doesn't advocate killing Jews, Americans or Brits. It doesn't advocate flying planes into buildings, blowing up buses or trains. Nor does it advocate cutting heads off. It is no worse the the anti western, anti Jewish rubbish spewing from the mouths of radical and even moderate Muslims. I think Brits are afraid.
George Kay,
13-02-2009
- U.S.A.
Good riddance! Wilders is nothing more but a silly and wild cock crowing on his own stinking dung hill. His use of "fighting words" in his smear campaign against Islam, is not protected by the freedom of expression clause, like shouting "fire" in a theatre.
Sam,
13-02-2009
-
The clips in Wilders's film Fitna are found on the web - what is worrying is that if one translates Arab TV where most of these clips can be found - will those sites also be deemed racist and accused of inciting hatred towards Muslims - where do we stop?
The little girl in the Fitna film who is asked to repeat the verses which call the Jews animal names - originally appeared on - www.memritv.org - translated from Arab/Muslim TV channels.
Everyday there is an amazing amount of these items which - if some one like Wilders were to say - look - here is what they are saying - and reproduce them in a film - then he could be arrested for inciting hatred. Extremely worrying! It is beginning to look like a dual legal system.
alex doria,
13-02-2009
- netherlands
Amazing, this is one more absurd coming from the Nanny State that the UK has become.
Yolanda,
13-02-2009
-
As much as I disagree with Geert Wilder's ideas, he can in no way be considered 'radical'. Radical implies extremism, both words imply calling for violent struggle for their cause. Limiting his freedom of speech will only serve to further his cause as he will come to be seen as a sort of martyr for his supporters, someone who has given up a normal life to fight for his beliefs, someone who is being wrongly compared to Hitler (That British Lord, forgot his name, who said something like " Hitler was chosen too, but that didn't make it okay for him to commit genocide against the Jewish people". That implies that Geert Wilders is calling for some kind of genocide as well, which is an irresponsible comparison. As an American I'm flabbergasted by how ridiculous Europeans are when they talk about Wilders, calling him 'radical' in the news media when by definition he's never committed a radical act. I think Europe wants to limit freedom of speech to prevent another Nazi situation, but I think Europe's fear of repeating history is unfounded and that actually the people who limit his freedom of speech are a bit 'radical' for believing that in 2009, in the modern world, in Europe no less, the limit to freedom of speech is whatever the majority finds acceptable. Well, using that logic, wasn't Hitler supported by a majority during his time of rule? The purpose of freedom of speech is that it's above the rule of the people, because it's the rule of the people where dangers lie, as the public is easily swayed and easily affected by sudden situations such as economic collapse (Hitler might not have rose to power were it not for poor economic conditions in Germany). I hate all these comparisons to Hitler, because this situation is not serious enough to call for it, but I decided to make my own to show that this whole debate can be looked at another way: is the majority tyrannizing innocent people for holding beliefs that should be acceptable to hold in a free, modern society? (That is, beliefs that may be considered radical to a majority of the population, but don't call for violence or genocide.)
In a free and modern society you have to accept the right of fringe groups like Wilders to express their ideas or you run the risk of creating a feeling of being persecuted among his supporters, which just furthers radicalism, furthers anger at the system, which breeds disrespect for the system and the law, and eventually causes the 'forbidden' ideas to grow. Keep prosecuting Geert Wilders and before you know it he will become Prime Minister. It may be hard to imagine the connection between the two, but all you have to do is look at history to see it happen over and over and over again. That is the scary thing. Freedom of speech keeps fringe groups on the fringe and moderate groups in power, because as long as the fringe groups don't have gripes about how the system is treating them or that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, they will never gain enough support to enact their platform.
Jon Reykdalin,
InolfurArnarson@gmail.com,
13-02-2009
-
Ok. So, if, as an independent academic here in the Netherlands I want to study fascism and need to purchase a copy of Mein Kampf, I am forbidden to do so.
Wilders wants a similar ban imposed on the Koran. At the same time he wishes to have the right of 'free speech' to publish and aggressively proclaim endlessly, non-factual, crude prejudices against a broad ethnic and religious minority.
I hope that by attempting to 'have his cake AND eat it', Wilders doesn't choke on his hypocrisy...
Same goes for all Dutch 'liberals'...
The only worrying aspect about Wilders is his hairstyle.
However, the incipient growth of fascism in the Netherlands is no joke.
Thomas,
13-02-2009
- USA
The Internet is full of pictures and videos showing raging Muslims in London chanting "behead those who insult Islam!" and then some...In their Mosques radical Imams spewing blood boiling hatred and it's tolerated and protected by the Gov.
The fact that the Brits arrested a fellow EU citizen, a public figure on behest of "Lord Ahmed" and the pending legal prosecution of Wilders in the Netherlands are the first indelible evidences of the approaching collapse of the historical European political order.
There is no amount of spin or Orwellian "newspeak" can camouflage the forlorn writing on the wall that the implosion will be phenomenally fast and irreversible and Oriana Fallaci's nightmare will be the dawn in this new Eu.
François,
12-02-2009
- Netherlands.
Finally common sense has prevailed. Thank you Britain you have made the right decision. This was a well considered decision which was not emotional as some comments on this site. There was nothing shameful or cowardly about this. Wilders is dangerous to any society including right here in the Netherlands and that is why he is facing trial in our courts. As I have said before the right to movement or speech or privacy is not absolute. In any case there is a double standard being applied. The European Union doesn't respect the right of movement for many people from the developing world nor does it listen to them or respect their privacy. In addition hate speech is also very dangerous for society. Let him stay home. Send him back like he always says about immigrants to the Netherlands.
Nicky,
12-02-2009
- Canada
I am a black African in Canada, I know what the freedom of Speech mean. I am really proud of MP. Mr, Wilder of risking his life to stand up for islamization of Europe.
If a brave one like Mr. Wilder do not stand up for freedom, then, the cowards majority in Eurpoe will be islamic sooner.
May Good Bless Mr. Wilder.
David Berridge,
12-02-2009
- Canada
Does Wilders get many frequent flyer points for same day return trips?
Paul,
12-02-2009
- netherlands
i don't thing it matters if you agree or not with his personal views, i do not see what any of this has to do with england. poking noses again! sorry, i come from england too! eek!
Abi,
12-02-2009
-
Sandra, Freedom of speech should not mean hurting other people and insulting their beliefs. You can of course be critical, but with respect and dialogue.
Jonathan Dickson,
12-02-2009
- Irish Republic
Tick, tick, tick....
JD.
NO TO LISBON MEANS NO TO LISBON!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38059363467
FREESA,
12-02-2009
- ENGLAND
Hi There!
I am a South African whose fellow non white citizens were subjected to apartheid by the Afrikaners of Dutch descent and of the Dutch Reform Church. I want to flip the argument....what if I created a video clip of Dutch people killing non white people, segregating people, stealing their land, etc,etc. Basically replacing his video with the Dutch atrocities in South Africa and then ask the Dutch authorities to play this video in the Dutch parliament and then claim all Dutch people are racists and murderers..Would they agree?????
Listen: Jo Glanville from the Index on Censorship opposes the ban