Anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders refused entry to Britain

[lasto]

From The TimesFebruary 12, 2009

Anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders refused entry to Britain
(Marcel Antonisse/EPA)
Geert Wilders caught a British Midlands flight to Heathrow
David Charter, Heathrow, and Nico Hines
The far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders was turned away from Heathrow today after testing the Home Secretary?s ban on him entering the country.

Immigration officials denied the Dutch MP entry to the country after the Government decided he should not be allowed to attend a screening of his controversial anti-Islamist film tonight.

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.?

On his flight to London, he told The Times that the British Government was ?the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe

?It is easy to invite people you agree with, it is more difficult to invite people you disagree with and this is the proof of the pudding," he said.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician (Lord Pearson of Rannoch). I am a democrat, I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me they are being nasty to freedom of speech.

He added: "They (the British government) are more Chamberlain than Churchill."

At 2.20pm, Mr Wilders was escorted through UK immigration by two plain-clothed officers and into the offices of the UK border agency.

At one stage, during the long walk from the plane to immigration, one of Mr Wilders? bodyguards asked border agency guards to relax their grip on the MP.

The guards kept a tight hold on both Mr Wilders?s arms as they walked him through the airport followed by a gaggle of journalists and cameramen.

As he approached passport control, Mr Wilders was asked if he was nervous. He replied: ?I?m not nervous. I?m just anxious to find out what will happen to me. Is this how Great Britain welcomes a democrat??

Among those waiting for Mr Wilders in arrivals was Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP for London. ?I thought it would be a nice touch to turn up and welcome him here if he gets through,? he said.

what do u make to this - where has freedom of speech gone ?

Seems the British goverment where blackmailed :

The person who is responsible for all this commotion is Lord Ahmed of Rotherham who threatened to demonstrate outside the House of Lords with 10,000 muslims.

bah, another detail the europeans are unable to deal with... their neighbours...

[UKBusinessLive]

Originally Posted by lasto

what do u make to this - where has freedom of speech gone ?

Seems the British goverment where blackmailed :

The person who is responsible for all this commotion is Lord Ahmed of Rotherham who threatened to demonstrate outside the House of Lords with 10,000 muslims.

10,000 :erm: I wonder how they have so much time on their hands, Job seekers allowance comes to mind

I do feel sorry for people like this that they have to feel the urge to demonstrate, can't be easy for them to be living in a non muslim country, I know for a fact the Army are going out to Afganistan on a daily basis, perhaps we could help out with the repatriation.

Oh i forgot They don't do social security in Afganistan, well thats blown that idea

The UK Government is so corupt nowdays they only listen if you pay in cash

[UKBusinessLive]

WOW did i stop this thread from working ???? :erm:

[lasto]

maybe people never understood what actually happened.
When i heard about this i was well angry even though i dont share Geert Wilders views.
We have a goverment that allows itself to be blackmailed and surely this wont be the end of the matter.

[Rapscallion]

Originally Posted by lasto

what do u make to this - where has freedom of speech gone ?

The UK does practice freedom of speech within certain guidelines. We don't really have it enshrined in the constitution in the way the USA has, but it's generally regarded (as I understand it) that you can say anything as long as it's not going to incite hatred or violence. There are limits.

Considering how long it took the police to investigate and prosecute Hamza a year or so back, I'm satisfied that the process is sufficiently arduous and checked at every step.

So, if a demonstration turned up, composed of British citizens (no matter their religious affiliation) and protested and the government listened, isn't that actually good for democracy?

Rapscallion

[UKBusinessLive]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion

The UK does practice freedom of speech within certain guidelines. We don't really have it enshrined in the constitution in the way the USA has, but it's generally regarded (as I understand it) that you can say anything as long as it's not going to incite hatred or violence. There are limits.

Considering how long it took the police to investigate and prosecute Hamza a year or so back, I'm satisfied that the process is sufficiently arduous and checked at every step.

So, if a demonstration turned up, composed of British citizens (no matter their religious affiliation) and protested and the government listened, isn't that actually good for democracy?

Rapscallion

I see where your coming from, The problem with Hamza, was that The Human Rights Act keep on preventing him from being prosecuted much earlier. For those of you that don't know about The Human Rights Act, basically it gives Criminals just as much Rights if not more than their Victim, The Law was bought into the UK By Tony Blair, Not sure if he did it to please his wife, as she is a top Human Rights Lawyer.

The problem with Hamza was that he's wanted for terror charges, A video of his rantings was found with some possessions of one of the muslims that flew the plane into the Twin towers, hamza although and very cleverly didn't do any of the dirty work, He did however urge these people to commit acts of Murder and Torrorisim.

We just need to be extra careful :erm:

[Rapscallion]

Originally Posted by UKBusinessLive

We just need to be extra careful :erm:

Apparently on the roads as well.

Lord Ahmed jailed for causing death by dangerous driving while holding a text conversation.

Back to the original topic, if a counter-protest was organised by atheists and/or agnostics etc to protest that Geert Wilders should be allowed in, would it be listened to in the same way? I have no idea.

Was it actually Lord Death By Vehicle who stopped one person coming in? I'd like to think the UK authorities are more inclined to follow procedure that (literally) peer pressure.

Rapscallion

[kevcj]

Originally Posted by lasto

what do u make to this - where has freedom of speech gone ?

Your talking about a country that threw people in jail for printing articles that where not favorable towards the king and queen, what do you expect?

When the uncle of Benjamin Franklin (James Franklin) printed that the freedom of speech was a right given by GOD and not the king, he was arrested and put on trial. When the jury agreed that the right to speak was given by GOD and not the king, the judge had the entire jury arrested.

James Franklin was also prohibited from printing certain articles unless it was approved by the Secretary of the Province.

http://www.archive.org/stream/benjam...niala_djvu.txt

The House of Representatives concurred, and the com-
mittee reported :

" That James Franklin,' the printer and publisher thereof
(the Courant), be strictly forbidden by this Court to print or
publish the New England Courant, or any other pamphlet or
paper of the like nature, except it be first supervised by the
Secretary of this Province; and the Justices of his Majesty's
Sessions of the Peace for the County of Suffolk, at their
next adjournment, be directed to take sufficient bonds of the
said Franklin for twelve months' time."

Benjamin Franklin was also arrested, but was released because he was printing what his master (his uncle) told him to print.

Not much has changed in the last 250 years.

[UKBusinessLive]

Originally Posted by kevcj

Your talking about a country that threw people in jail for printing articles that where not favorable towards the king and queen, what do you expect?

When the uncle of Benjamin Franklin (James Franklin) printed that the freedom of speech was a right given by GOD and not the king, he was arrested and put on trial. When the jury agreed that the right to speak was given by GOD and not the king, the judge had the entire jury arrested.

James Franklin was also prohibited from printing certain articles unless it was approved by the Secretary of the Province.

http://www.archive.org/stream/benjam...niala_djvu.txt



Benjamin Franklin was also arrested, but was released because he was printing what his master (his uncle) told him to print.

Not much has changed in the last 250 years.

To be honest, The laws of 250 years ago cannot be compared to the laws now. At that point in history, that was the law, and if it was broken then people got punished, end of story.

What we need to look at VERY carefully, both in Europe and America is how laws are being created in favor of the criminals, especially since they use Human Rights Act to protect themselves.

In the UK over the past couple of days, Defence secretary John Hutton has apologised to MPs because British forces in Iraq handed over to the Americans two terror suspects, who were then transferred to Afghanistan for interrogation.

Why? The Americans are our principal allies and the senior partners in the coalition.

In World War II, would we have apologised for transferring two Nazis captured in France to the custody of General Patton?

Of course not. What's the problem with their being interrogated in Afghanistan?

No one seems to mind British firms outsourcing work to call centres in India. I fail to understand why people of a certain mindset bend over themselves to swallow every last allegation of abuse by jihadists dedicated to our destruction.

They accept without question any 'innocent' explanation of what these people were doing when they were picked up on the battlefield - from attending weddings to taking computer courses.

Yet they are convinced that our allies and our own security services are always lying.
They can't wait for Binman Mohamed to start telling lurid tales about how he was tortured. His sister Zuhra says: 'He's thin, but he's sharp. He knows what he's talking about.' Too right, he does. Islamist terrorists are as skilled in propaganda as they are in explosives.

They know that our own 'bien pensant' selfloathing and gullibility are potent weapons to be turned against us - as lethal as using our 'asylum' laws to infiltrate our society and hijacking our airliners and flying them into tower blocks.

There's a war on, not a teddy bears' picnic. These people are our sworn enemies, not hapless victims.

Yet while ministers salve their consciences by hanging out to dry our soldiers and secret agents, they hide behind Cabinet secrecy laws to cover their own culpability.

Hutton was one of those who voted for the invasion of Iraq. He can't start trying to wash his hands of the consequences now. At least these two captured in Iraq were sent to Afghanistan, not Camp Gitmo.

Otherwise, by now they'd have been flown to Britain, where they'd immediately be welcomed as heroes by the human rites brigade, showered with legal aid and welfare benefits and would be preparing to take their place on the chat show sofa alongside Binman Mohamed.

This is the real Problem