Thursday, February 12, 2009

Geert Wilders and European Freedoms

I observe with particular pleasure that the blogger at the back of the hill (atboth) is having a fit over the British banning of entry to England by Dutch Parliamentarian and rabble-rouser Geert Wilders. While I would myself not wish to see Wilders as the dominant voice in any parliament, he serves a very useful function as both gadfly, and, it must be said, canary in the coalmine of democracy.

Atboth writes about the refusal to allow Geert Wilders into Britain here:
Excerpt: "The British campaign against freedom of speech and secular humanism gathers steam, and Britain appears to be heading into the grey zone of civilization. No longer a bastion of civil liberties, or even democratic ideals, Britain seems destined for a shadowy half-life of quivering and abject 1984ism."

Atboth judges the British harshly here:
Excerpt: "The British government has taken the extraordinary step of caving in, without a whimper, to fists being shaken impotently at them by angry illiterates."


A search of the internet shows that there is a spectrum of opinions, of which I present a sampling below. No Muslim opinions are represented, for two reason:
1. I really do not give an ooloo's gand what those camelwhackers think.
2. I am sure that they have already screamed their opinion and threatened vengeance if not listen to with abject quaking. Pissy bastards.
Excerpt: The Roman Catholic rightwinger from the southern Netherlands sees himself as the heir to other recent Dutch iconoclasts such as Pim Fortuyn, the politician who was murdered after he campaigned for an end to traditional Dutch multiculturalism, and Theo van Gogh, the film-maker stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street after making a documentary that denounced alleged Islamic repression.
Excerpt: Here are germane extracts from my discussion of the Calcutta Koran Petition which illustrate how it is the abuse of hate speech laws by Muslims seeking to impose Sharia mandates on non-Muslim majorities that is the source of the problem:

"One particularly successful action stands out, as described by [Sita Ram] Goel. Two Hindus were arrested—under Indian penal code sections exploited by Muslims to prevent public criticism of Muhammad or other aspects of their creed—for publishing a poster which cited 24 Koranic verses ( see them below), with a caption, "Why riots take place in this country." The protesters added their own editorial comment that these verses,

…command the believers (Muslims) to fight against followers of other faiths…so long as these ayats [verses] are not removed [from the Koran], riots in the country cannot be prevented…There are numerous (other) ayats of the same sort. Here we have cited only 24 ayats. Obviously, these ayats carry commandments which promote enmity, ill-will, deception, fraud, strife, robbery, and murder. That is why riots take place between Muslims and non-Muslims, in this country as well as [the rest of] the world. In the above mentioned 24 ayats of the Koran, Muslims are commanded to fight against the followers of other faiths. So long as these ayats are not removed [from the Koran], riots in the country cannot be prevented.

The ruling magistrate sided with the accused Hindus, and in dismissing charges against them, observed,

…a close perusal of the Ayats [verses] shows that that the same are harmful and teach hatred, and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other ".
Excerpt: The refusal to admit the oddball Dutch MP Geert Wilders to Britain yesterday marks a further retreat from this country's traditions of free speech. It stands in stark contrast to what happened exactly 20 years ago tomorrow, when Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie for insulting the Prophet Mohammed in his book The Satanic Verses.

In retrospect, that was a turning point in the country's history of free speech, an event that appeared to demonstrate indomitability, yet turned out to be a defeat. An unambiguous stand was taken on Rushdie's behalf by the government of the day, which denounced the threat to his life and broke off diplomatic relations with Iran.
Despite mass book burnings, protests around the world, including in Bolton and Bradford, and threats of violence, the work continued to be published and sold. How could it be otherwise? This was Britain, after all, the citadel of free speech. We would not be brow beaten into denying the rights of one of our citizens, or anyone else for that matter, from having their say, however controversial or offensive their opinion might be.

Sadly, the past two decades have seen a pusillanimous flight into cowering capitulation.
Excerpt: Denmark’s governing Liberal Party Foreign Policy Spokesman Søren Pind has entered the debate concerning a decision by Britain to ban the entry of the populist Dutch politician Geert Wilders because of his extreme views about Islam.
"Unless you’re a terrorist or something like that, you of course should be able to travel freely within the European Union. That’s the whole idea behind European rights and freedoms," says Pind.
Excerpt: A gay humanist group has said the Home Secretary was wrong to ban a Dutch MP who is critical of Islam. Jaqui Smith said that Geert Wilders, a leading rightwing politician and a fierce critic of Muslims , has been denied permission to enter Britain on the grounds that his presence would damage community relations and threaten public order.

The Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) had declared its opposition to the ban.

"We maintain that in a free society anyone should have the right to criticise religion without being banned, dubbed racist or, even worse, threatened with death as the humanist author Salman Rushdie was over his book The Satanic Verses," said PTT secretary George Broadhead.

"There can be no doubt from reading its holy books, the Qur'an and the Hadith, that Islam is a homophobic religion, which at worst has lead to the barbaric torture and murder of LGBT people in Islamic theocracies like Iran and Saudi Arabia."

"But it is also deeply mysoginist and hostile to apostates and unbelievers like humanists."

As an attorney, I would love to take this case. Mr. Wilder's argument against the British Government should be excellent, his cause more than easily winnable. And it is shameful that the British have bent over for the obscene attentions of Lord Nazir Ahmed and his band of shariatic vikings, intent on despoilation of their hosts.
Britain instead should take the lead, and explore avenues for deporting Muslims as undesirable aliens and thieves back to Pakistan, wherever they came from.
Especially if they are converts - the blasted Paks can have them, no one else should have to put up with them.

No comments: