A member of the Dutch parliament known for his criticism of Islam is considering legal action after he was banned from entering the United Kingdom.
It‘s the first time since the foundation of the European Union that a national MP is denied entry into another member state.
Listen to the interviews (2′27″)
Geert Wilders, a far right Dutch politician turned filmmaker, was due to screen his inflammatory movie Fitna at the House of Lords, in London, on the thirteen of February.
Fitna associates images of 9/11 and other terroristic attacks to some verses of the Koran which he says justify violence. But the Home Office has denied him entry saying that his beliefs expressed in the movie would threaten community harmony and public security in the UK.
Not a good argument according to Lord Malcolm Pearson who had organised the event: “When we did go ahead and showed the film no Muslim protesters showed up, it means that there was no threat to public security. Therefore the decision of the Home Secretary was illegal under European law”.
Lord Pearson accuses the government of sacrificing the freedom of speech in order to appease the Muslim community: “We are not provoking violence by showing this film. The violence comes in from their reaction to it. Then the Islamic Jihadist when they get exposed and challenged in this way they get angry”.
The Muslim Council of Britain has another view. According to the deputy secretary general Daud Abdullah, the danger to public security would not have come from the Muslims but from anti-Islamic groups.
“By giving this individual an audience it was in a sense assisting the far right in Britain to advance its own agenda, its hostile programs against Muslims and people of colour in the United Kingdom - says Abdullah -. That was going to create a situation where it was very likely to see a breakdown of security in part of our country”.
The Home Office would not comment on whether the dangers which led to the ban were coming from the Muslim or the anti-Muslim side. Since he returned home the MP Geert Wilders has received pledges from the Government of the Netherlands and from Lord Pearson to help him drafting his appeal.
(Gabriele Discepoli, 18/02/2009)
(14 votes, average: 2.93 out of 5)
Loading ...
“the right to criticize”? last time I checked the Charter freedom of speech was in there. I do think the title is misleading towards the actual issue - attacking Islam is the problem here, not simple criticism.
On topic, for security reasons any country can decide to do almost anything - even a minor diplomatic incidents. Provided, of course, that the arguments are sound. Which in this case is arguable, at the least.
If they were to say “the guy’s a well-spoken racist bastard and we don’t want the trouble he can cause” that would have been a lot more truthful - and completely understandable.
Bogdan is right: the right to criticise is fundamental, and does not depend on either the agent or object of criticism. If the criticism is unfair, by all means it should be countered, and I dare say that would be a far more productive use of the Muslim Council of Britain’s time. Their agenda would be far better served by exposing mr. Wilders as a quack than by declaring his product to be dangerous to the minds of the British public.
Pardon me for bringing up a quote that has been overused in recent years, but: Those people who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.