This is wrong...

R Giskard Reventlov

Banned Dutch MP to be sent home[^]. It doesn't matter whether or not you are with or against Mr Wilders it is deeply wrong that he has been turned away on the whim of poltical cowardice. After all of the scum bags we welcome here what is it that he offers that is so different from any one of the myriad mad-mullahs spouting vitriol and spite whilst claimimg unemployment benefit and, frankly, laughing at us and here, in the meantime, is a man who stands up to the fundamentalists that so scare us and, for that, we ban him? What happened to free speech? What happened to balance? What happened to proving someone guilty of soemthing before condemning them? Anger does not quite cover how I feel about this.

me, me, me

Sahir Shah

digital man wrote:

is it that he offers that is so different from any one of the myriad mad-mullahs spouting vitriol and spite

Yeah, I agree. This guys is the same as the mad mullahs. So, if they tolerate the mad mullahs, they should tolerate him as well.

MidwestLimey

That's gotten me pretty riled up too

Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore

Oakman

And Prince Harry is being sent to a a diversity and equality course[^]. I guess if having Camilla as a stepmother doesn't emasculate you, the British Army will finish the job.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

MrPlankton

Are they doing it to prevent riots from certain elements of the population, or is more based on just being PC?

MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman

Lost User

If you were British, and had the choice, would you ban the leader of the vile antisemitic "Nation of Islam" sect from visiting Britain. Well, a previous Home Secretary did just that - ban him just like the present Home Secretary has banned this Dutch bloke. Both essentially for the same reason - For the Public Good.

MrPlankton

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

would you ban the leader of the vile antisemitic "Nation of Islam"

No.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Both essentially for the same reason - For the Public Good.

Very bad then. The only, even partially "reasonable" excuse would be to avoid riots. Wonder if they will ban the new (more hawkish) Isreali President?

MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman

modified on Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:52 PM

Lost User · modified on Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:52 PM

A threat to "Public Order" is taken very seriously and is applied through Case Law rather than a Statute. As such, a judicial review is the way forward for somebody to present evidence that they are not, in fact, a threat. Regarding a Head of State (howsoever hawkish or not), a visit by a Head of State is done by invitation, diplomatic rules would apply. Presumably, if he/she visited in a private capacity, then "normal" rules would apply!

Last modified: 14mins after originally posted --

MrPlankton

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Regarding a Head of State (howsoever hawkish or not), a visit by a Head of State is done by invitation, diplomatic rules would apply. Presumably, if he/she visited in a private capacity, then "normal" rules would apply!

Sure, understand, diplomatic rules apply. After re-reading post I thought it could be mis-interpreted as UK would not let him in because he is a jew, but rather because he is a jew who is hawk on Isreali defence issues. Hence the edit.

MrPlankton
“If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” William Tecumseh Sherman

CSS_Shadow

Aren't you the little cheerio british puppet. Run along now, its almost past your curfew. I'm sure you will say something along the lines of: "Well dear heavuns!, If my queen says I have to stay in at night and pay double taxes than I will do it like a real manly patriot. Sip Sip".

martin_hughes

You seem to be under the misapprehension that excluding one bile-filled hate monger automatically endorses the hatred of another group of bile-filled hate mongers. It does not. Were you quite so indignant, quite so impassioned to defend freedom of speech when Abu Hamza was sentenced to serve 58 years in prison? Geert Wilders is not a blazing torch of freedom, truth, justice or anything else. He is a petty, evil little man with no redeeming qualities. Just like Abu Hamza and just like a certain Austrian stirring up hatred against the Jews 70-odd years ago. Freedom? Balance? Justice? Look elsewhere for it. Follow the likes of Geert Wilder, allow them to gain momentum, and fascism will soon follow.

print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?

Lost User

I'll ask Lillibet to send you an invite for tea and biscuits. Just make sure you don't fall foul as Martha Stewart, Snoop Dogg and Busta Rhymes did, otherwise you'll be deported upon your arrival. But, don't forget to brush-up on Royal Protocol, wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself or the good name of the United States of America.

Christian Graus

I disagree. I think that blocking free speech gives these people strength to be spreading their festering views out of sight. Make their views public, so they can be publicly shown for what they are.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

martin_hughes

You're wrong. What he has to say has nothing to do with free speech. I can attack those who commit atrocities a thousand ways without ever being called a racist, anti-Muslim or anti-anything else you might mention. I don't have to resort to hatred to make my point. Give these people a forum and they will attract followers. You naively think that people have your level of education and your level of reasoning - they don't. Even if they did, mob mentality, as history has shown, usually dictates that even those who know better will follow the crowd.

print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?

Christian Graus

Perhaps.

martin_hughes wrote:

You naively think that people have your level of education and your level of reasoning

Yeah, that is a good point. I would still maintain that their beliefs will grow all the more easily through being able to say 'the people in charge don't want you to hear this, because it's the truth', which is surely what he is saying.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.

martin_hughes

Christian Graus wrote:

which is surely what he is saying.

No more than those loons who believe that Roswell was a cover-up or 9/11 was an inside "job". Let these views bubble up in the minority. They bear as much relation to the truth as the moon being made of cheese or the Earth being hollow. Throw scorn on them, give them no credence and then, and only then, can we deal with the real problems facing humanity.

print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?

Vikram A Punathambekar

Very well said, Mr. Hughes. :thumbsup:

Cheers, Vıkram.

I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.