Dutch Politician Banned From UK.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Feb 2009, 00:04

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7885918.stm

Wow. What a fascist society we've become where freedom of speech no longer exists. The government should be ashamed and apologise to the Dutch for barring an elected EU politician. Jacqui Fatarse should resign for being bloody incompetant. Since when did so-called free societies ban people from having an unfashionable point-of-view? From what I know this man has not called for violence or racial discrimination. Therefore there's no legal justification for his humiliating exclusion. Paging George Orwell...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 13 Feb 2009, 00:31

The guy is a douchebag. I'm all for freedom of speech and all that (and although Wilders claims he is, at the same time he wants the Koran banned or burnt or torn up or whatever, and just a few weeks ago they (he and his political party) tried barring an american muslim from entering the country cause he was going to give a speech at a Dutch school, so he's a HUGE hypocrite and populist and crybaby), and TBH I do feel he should have been allowed into your country (and hopefully he would have said some dumb stuff so he could have been sued for inciting hate), but doesnt the UK also bar other people from entering the country for simular fears, like certain imam's or relatives of Bin Laden!?

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I'm against censorship, but this guy really is a dumb biggot idiot who's in the pocket of Israel and has made it a fulltime job to badmouth muslims, islam and maroccans about EVERYTHING.

This guy is only pro 'freedom of speech' when it's something HE wants to say or hear. If a muslim says something he doesnt agree with, he's talking about throwing them out of the country.

Sadly, once again he's playing the victim in all this, thus it will just get him more votes.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Feb 2009, 00:54

I figured that, thanks Yi.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Feb 2009, 11:09

I'm all for freedom of speech too but surely all the things this guy says will just fuel extremists, saying the Koran is a terrorist book etc, its not. It's only evil people/scum who use that book and say it "says" something to try to justify what they're doing. It doesnt mean it was written that way. It can be interpreted lots of different ways, as can all Holy books.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 13 Feb 2009, 12:27

Whilst i disagree with this guys opinions, banning him as the worst thing they could have done. If there was one way to get thousands of people to see his movie, that was it. If they let him into the country,let him show his video to the MPs then let him go again, many of us would be none the wiser about this. They've created a media furor about this guy and his video and at the same time called into question the limits of our on "democracy." Making us look like the bad guys once again. Of course allowing him to speak could have backfired too, media blowing it out of proportion that the ministers are watching anti-islamic movies and all that shit, but i don't think it would have been such a media issue like it is now.
The thing is, they agreed to allow this video to be shown and then backed out last minute, I'm sure they knew the content of that film when they agreed, i doubt it was a case of this guy told them it was a film about fluffy bunnies and ponies and they agreed on that grounds only to find out later it was an extremist video. So why did they agree in the first place if they don't tolerate extremism?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 13 Feb 2009, 12:42

Which raises the question why they even wanted to see this movie? It's just an amateurishy made collection of shocking 'youtube' clips and out of context phrases of the Koran, all for the goal to convince the viewer that 'Islam is evil'.

It's a bunch of BS anti-islam propaganda, and not very well made at that.

It also shows how 'hypocrite' the west is. If some politician would have made the exact same type of movie about JEWS, that guy would probably be branded a nazi and thrown in jail already.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Feb 2009, 13:44

Yi-Long wrote:The guy is a douchebag.

Maybe, but that's not illegal... YET!

I'm all for freedom of speech and all that (and although Wilders claims he is, at the same time he wants the Koran banned or burnt or torn up or whatever, and just a few weeks ago they (he and his political party) tried barring an american muslim from entering the country cause he was going to give a speech at a Dutch school, so he's a HUGE hypocrite and populist and crybaby)

Then he is a hypocrite. UNLESS his objection was based on the notion of said Muslim calling for violence or discrimination. Do you know what his actual objections were? I'd never heard of this dude until yesterday so the UK government has done a great job in giving him publicity.

and TBH I do feel he should have been allowed into your country (and hopefully he would have said some dumb stuff so he could have been sued for inciting hate)

That's it isn't it? If he says something illegal he would be arrested and we the British public should be allowed to make up our own minds about his POV as long as it doesn't break the law. And saying the Koran is vile crap doesn't. It's political censorship and very dangerous.

but doesnt the UK also bar other people from entering the country for simular fears, like certain imam's or relatives of Bin Laden!?

Yes. But in the majority of cases I believe the banned persons have called for racial discrimination of some sort or encouraged terrorism. I think this is the first time an elected EU politician has been banned simply because his POV is unfashionable.

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I'm against censorship, but this guy really is a dumb biggot idiot who's in the pocket of Israel and has made it a fulltime job to badmouth muslims, islam and maroccans about EVERYTHING.

I'm sure you're right. But even idiots have the right to free speech... just as we have the right to disagree.

This guy is only pro 'freedom of speech' when it's something HE wants to say or hear. If a muslim says something he doesnt agree with, he's talking about throwing them out of the country.

Again, it depends on the nature of those objections. If it's simply objecting to someone who's Muslim making ANY speech then he's wrong, of course.

Sadly, once again he's playing the victim in all this, thus it will just get him more votes.

You can thank Jacqui Fatarse and Gordon Brownshorts for that.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Feb 2009, 13:46

grim_tales wrote:I'm all for freedom of speech too but surely all the things this guy says will just fuel extremists, saying the Koran is a terrorist book etc, its not.

Lol, have you read it?

It's only evil people/scum who use that book and say it "says" something to try to justify what they're doing. It doesnt mean it was written that way. It can be interpreted lots of different ways, as can all Holy books.

Absolutely. But doesn't he have the right to his opinion on it? You don't HAVE to agree with him.

Shen wrote:Whilst i disagree with this guys opinions, banning him as the worst thing they could have done. If there was one way to get thousands of people to see his movie, that was it. If they let him into the country,let him show his video to the MPs then let him go again, many of us would be none the wiser about this. They've created a media furor about this guy and his video and at the same time called into question the limits of our on "democracy." Making us look like the bad guys once again.

Very well said.

The irony is he was here in the UK just two weeks ago.

Yes - he's already been here!!

The idiots!!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Feb 2009, 14:38

I haven't read it Mark. have you?

But I'm sure there will be "whatever you want to see" in a Holy text if you look for it. Islam is a peaceful faith and doesnt their book say their God is merciful etc.
"I disapprove of what you say but I defend to the death you're right to say it" (Voltaire)
Isn't what he said as bad as some schools that teach non Muslims are pigs

Or David Irving? He was a loon (and wrong), but he went to jail for it.
His POV isnt hurting ME personally (I don't agree with what he said), but as Shen said it makes us look bad and could give extremists an excuse to attack "the west".

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 13 Feb 2009, 14:52

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Feb 2009, 15:09

Another meaningful reasoned response from Romero...

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 13 Feb 2009, 15:35

Grim, my dear man, please get your facts right before you state things, your comment about David Irving really bugs me, he's an easy target for people who want to make a point, but it actually just shows ones ignorance. It is a common misconception that Irving is a Holocaust denier, he is in fact a revisionist, simply stating that the figure of 6 million JEWS killed (beside anyone else) is exaggerated. he has said other things which have been un-pc, like the jews bring on some of the dislike towards them themselves (well one cant disagree too far when you see the way israel behaves, and the way they have played on the Shoah, holocaust industry is a great book btw) of course I'm not saying that this gives anyone the right to murder them as happened in WW2. He does admire Hitler a bit too much for my liking (although i don't take the school of thought that it was planned from day 1, too much evidence against it) but despite his leanings and convictions, the research he has produced in his books has been invaluable to the historical archives and understandings of that period, he is indeed a fantastic and thorough historian, just with some rather unconventional opinions. As for him being a loon, i think loon is the wrong term, eccentric might be more apt, and many historians are rather eccentric. Daniel Goldhagen for example said all Germans were with Hitler and every single German helped to murder the Jews. Every historian twists his research towards their personal feelings, so whilst his books show a good deal of bias towards Hitler, the research and facts are nonetheless very interesting. His eccentricity in life isn't that relevant to his works, other than in their bias, not the actual research and facts presented.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Feb 2009, 18:29

Revolutionist? My word, you're being kind. I think he reckons it's closer to 100,000. Oh right, that's okay then. Please!

well one cant disagree too far when you see the way israel behaves, and the way they have played on the Shoa

That would be the Israels, not Jews per se, would it not?

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 13 Feb 2009, 19:00

read my post brad, i said REVISIONIST not REVOLUTIONIST, two different things. and yes that was a reference to Israel rather than the jewish population, but then how often have the people been punished for the leaders? And not even the leaders, the elite in america have a fantastic extortion racquet going on supposedly to help the survivors, i think the current amount extorted from places like germany, austria, hungary, UK and switzerland amounts to around 13 billion dollars. Their arrogance that they are the only people who have suffered an only their suffering can be called a holocaust, and that only jews can be survivors of the holocaust certainly doesn't endear them to their peers, even if it is those high up that are causing this feeling of distrust and malice. An interview i read with Irving some time ago, he stated no malice towards the general jewish population, but rather the leaders and elites that abuse their powers and religion to get what they want.

Have you read his work? his research suggests that to kill 6 million jewish people alone, not regarding the other people they killed (which is estimated around 2 million by some historians) every camp would have to kill 2000 jews a day to reach that figure in the period they had EVERY camp, whilst Auschwitz may have been able to do this, the smaller camps certainly wouldn't have been able to do this, an then on top murder the other people? I think his estimate is far to conservative personally, but i do think that the number has been inflated, after all, at the ned of the holocaust it was said there were 20,000 jewish survivors, rescued from the camps, this number of the years has GROWN to 2 million survivors, inflated by the elite to get more reparations for various countries. So if they can inflate survivors, they sure can inflate those who perished.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 13 Feb 2009, 19:19

Shen wrote:read my post brad, i said REVISIONIST not REVOLUTIONIST, two different things

Oops, so you did

.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Feb 2009, 19:22

grim_tales wrote:I haven't read it Mark. have you?

No, but then I didn't make this comment: "I'm all for freedom of speech too but surely all the things this guy says will just fuel extremists, saying the Koran is a terrorist book etc, its not." Your remark suggests you're talking with authority.

Isn't what he said as bad as some schools that teach non Muslims are pigs

Has Wilders called Muslims pigs? AFAIK he's only condemned the Quoran, which he's entitled to do. I'm sure Yi-Long will correct me if I'm wrong.

Or David Irving? He was a loon (and wrong), but he went to jail for it.

Which was wrong. If someone dismisses the holocaust you dismiss them as a crank. If someone is jailed for their belief (however misguided or factually incorrect) you make them a martyr.

His POV isnt hurting ME personally (I don't agree with what he said), but as Shen said it makes us look bad

Oh noes.

and could give extremists an excuse to attack "the west".

Like they need an excuse... Besides would that just be proving his point?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 13 Feb 2009, 19:45

Sorry maybe I should have said "I don't think it is"

I don't agree with Irving and think he was wrong, but I'm not sure he should have gone to jail. Is humiliation not enough? However he was tried under a different set of laws other than our own.
Wilders says the film isnt offensive "unless you are a violent Islamist".. hmmm.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Feb 2009, 23:06

grim_tales wrote:Wilders says the film isnt offensive "unless you are a violent Islamist".. hmmm.

I'd imagine it's offensive to anyone who follows the Quoran. But that's tough shit. The price of freedom of speech is that everyone has it. Muslims hold lots of opinions that I don't share. Maybe I should ask the government to ban them? When we go down this road we arrive at a destination called fascism.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 14 Feb 2009, 11:50

Maybe its making a point similar to the Mohammed cartoons - ie how SOME Muslims will become corrupted and then they use religion/the Koran to justify their actions (a point worth making I think). But having seen the film I don't know.
The Government allows other preachers of hate against Christianity/Judaism or the West to be here, why the double standard against this MP?