A political and controversial official from Netherlands is being blocked entry into the UK. Do you agree with UK's decision to block him?
I do not. I thought the UK was meant to be a tolerant nation that listened to everyone's views, regardless of whether or not we liked what they had to say. Apparently I was wrong.
You don't have the right to go through life never being offended. the ironic thing is he was refused entry not because the government respected islam, it's because his visit was seen as a "threat to public safety". He was refused entry through fear of muslims rioting and trying to kill him. which kind of proves the point he was making in his film. My suggestion to muslims is, If people are doing things through fear don't start crying when your religion gets a bad name. accept that sometimes, some people, are going to say thing which you don't like and, in England, That right is protected by the law, Your feelings however, are not. Gert Wilders is an elected politician. The member of the house of lords, Lord ahmed, The man who threatened to mobilise 10,000 muslims and march on parliament, Which is illegal, Has been elected by nobody. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW6PRABq4HM
One thing I've seen when I've been to UK was that they have this odd let-in-the country stay-in-the-country politics. I had to provide like a hundred pieces of paper to get a visa when I had nothing ilegitimate but when I arrived it was like [exaggerate]only me who is a foreigner and has a visa[/exaggerate]. That's a bit of a different thing though, about this one; UK has a record of refusing entry to all kinds of controversial people, including those who had non-mainstream views about holocoust or even american rappers who have drug convictions, which makes this not an unheard situation, so picking this as if it's a shift in UK's politics is irreleveant, it's their usual conduct towards foreign far-right-wingers.
Unless the title's been lifted, here's the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQdZgojOFI It should be noted that a Dutch filmmaker was murdered several years ago for making a film critical of Islam.
SO isn't the UK Govt which put the ban also elected ? Does being elected mean that you can do whatever you want?
members of the house of lords aren't elected and neither is lord ahmed, the man who threatened to illegally mobilise 10,000 muslims to "siege" parliament. But then, Even if the lords were elected they would still have still sacrificed Britain's proud tradition of free speech because of fear. This is the point, The banning of wilders wasn't because of respect for islam, it was because of the fear of what may happen if they let him in.
They should have let him in. Anyone who riots can be thrown into a prison cell until they calm down. No religon should be allowed to run the country.
Racism is a very overused word in my opinion. There are plenty of wankers who are of different ethnic origin. It doesn't make them any less of a wanker being so, but makes people less likely to call them so in case they jump on the hip-hop trendy-bendy race bandwagon. How pathetic are they.
Actually we do. as i said, He wasn't denied entry out of respect of islam, he was denied entry because of fear of it. The statement said his entry would pose a "risk to public safety" because of what the islamic population might do to him or others caught up in the inevitable hate filled violent protest that would follow. So don't kid yourself that this was a victory for religion, because all it done was confirm the claims he made in the film and give him far more publicity than the small private screening he had planned ever could. islam isn't a race.
stOx i know that Islam is not a race , that is why i wrote it within "" . And i dont remember , but UK told that he is resposible for creating hate in society
"On Tuesday, The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds he "would threaten community security and therefore public security"." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ian-turned-away-from-Britain-at-Heathrow.html Like i said, The ban is not a result of respect.
lol .. he has been banned , now you don't need to give that many explanations again and again be it respect or fear it does no matter
According to the Court of Appeal Wilders has indeed insulted the Islamic worshippers themselves by affecting the symbols of the Islamic belief as well. (Amsterdam Court of Appeal orders the criminal prosecution of the Member of Parliament of the Dutch Second Chamber Geert Wilders )
It should matter, If not only to the followers of islam. I mean, what impression does it give about the religion if governments are forced in to doing what muslims want through fear of violence? I would say the impression it gives about the religion is the exact thing the film was claiming. It seems recently every time islam has got it's own way it was because of fear. Religion of peace? No. Religion of intimidation. Wow, insulted you say? I heard it can take anything up to 3 minutes to recover fully from being insulted. I don't know where the assumption that you are entitled to protection from offence comes from. Can you explain to me why you feel you should go through life not being offended?