Another fine day for freedom of speech

Why dosent some one stand up and tell all the religious belivers that they are actual wrong. There is no god, so there is nothing to be ofended about. They just need some education.

Has anyone actually seen the offending film so that we can draw our own conclusions or would that just get in the way of a good old left V right STW bunfight ?

I suspect that if you were to search – say – Youtube for Fitna – 1/2 & Fitna – 2/2

You’d find such a film

Islam is a peaceful religion. Yes of course it is. That’s why they turn the other cheek whenever someone dares to critisise.

It’s a tolerant religion. Tolerant of women wearing what they like. Of course.

Always amuses me that whenever Christianity is mentioned 99% of the posters are quick to heap ridicule on anyone who expresses belief. When Islam comes up many of those who condemn Christianity come running to it’s defence.

BTW – the only reason I didn’t publish a link to the film is that some of the images are not suitable for kids & probably not work safe

I have no time for religion at all. Neither do I have any time for numpties who do not recognise that the caricature of islam we are presented with in our press is taking the extremist fundamental position as speaking for all Islam.

B
O
R
I
N
G

Usual STW crap with loads of ignorant bods spouting loads of shite about sumfink they know **** all about, whilst one or two intelligent people are actually willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner…

Did anyone get their baps out, though; I think that’s the real issue here!

Usual STW………….spouting loads of shite

The shite spouted on here is what makes STW interesting, fun, amusing and worthwhile.

How boring would it be ffs, if all the comments on here were sensible, intelligent, and well thought out ?

Now that would be ……..

B
O
R
I
N
G

Usual STW crap with loads of ignorant bods spouting loads of shite about sumfink they know **** all about, whilst one or two intelligent people are actually willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner…

Do you think you may be guilty of that which you criticise?

No.

Did anyone see that utter buffooon Keith Vaz on newsnight last night. Nothing could better illustrates this governments attitude to free speech

He was spouting off about this film inciting racial hatred, and how it should be banned,. The others in the studio were in agreement that it shouldn’t, as these things need to be publicly debated.

Cue the killer question:

“Keith – Have you actually seen this film?”

“Erm…. well…. actually…. no I haven’t. But if people want to debate this issue, then they are fee to go to heathrow, fly to holland and debate it with the filmaker himself”

So…. in a nutshell. Our glorious government now advocate as official policy that if you want to have a frank and open debate the subject, you sure as well won’t be doing it in this country.

I despair!!

The point which I don’t think I’ve seen anybody mention on here is that his film and what he’s said in the past aren’t actually illegal in this country. On that basis there was absolutely no justifiable reason to ban him from entering.

However much you may disagree with what he’s saying (and I do), the right of free speech in this country does extend as far as allowing him to say what he’s saying – he doesn’t actually stray into the area of illegality (any suggestion that he does appears to be based on the line that he’s stirring up the very people he is pointing out are violent, which is wonderfully ironic!)

He was spouting off about this film inciting racial hatred, and how it should be banned,. The others in the studio were in agreement that it shouldn’t, as these things need to be publicly debated.

So the others didn’t disagree that the film incited racial hatred, only that “these things need to be publicly debated” ?

Well inciting racial hatred has been a criminal offence in the UK for over 30 years. And the last Tory government in 1994, made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.

Perhaps you think foreigners should just stroll into our country and break our laws as however suits them ? Perhaps the freedom to air personal opinions can be extended to other criminal groups too ? How about pedophiles ? Perhaps foreign pedophiles should be allowed to come over to the UK and inform us that shagging children is fine – surely “these things need to be publicly debated” ?

And wouldn’t that be good for “community harmony and public security” ?

If we put the action taken by the government aside for the moment, I find it alarming just how some of you are using the freedom of speech card, just as an excuse to attack the current Government. I think some of you right leaning commentators here need to seperate the “let’s attack this Government no matter what they do” and “freedom of speech.”

Have some of you even bothered to read how unsavoury this Wilders is?

While I agree that the principle of freedom of speech must be defended, there are far more worthy causes to stand up and protect in regards to freedom of speech over than Wilders and his views.

All this Government has done however is give this idiot is unrequired press coverage.

However much you may disagree with what he’s saying

I think one of the things that makes his film so effective, is that he doesn’t actually say anything. The only quotes are from Muslims, the Koran or from victims of Muslim terrorist attrocities.

For the record, personally, I think we should do what we can to keep radical loonies out of the country, be they democratically elected, right wing politicians or indocrtrinated, religious zealots. Two cheeks of the same arsehole as far as I’m concerned.

This dutch chap is awaiting prosecution for stirring up racial hatred in Holland – do we really want him here?

do we really want him here?

That’s not the question though, TJ. As much as I’d rather he stayed away, I’m not convinced there was a valid justifiable reason for keeping him out (that isn’t thin end of the wedge).

Perhaps foreign pedophiles should be allowed to come over to the UK and inform us that shagging children is fine

Whilst I’d not encourage them, in a similar way there’s no legal reason to prevent them entering the country, or indeed to prevent them saying such things.

TJ. Has he been convicted of anything yet? No! Then there seems no legal reason to bar him from the country

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Or should we just organise lynch mobs for people who’s opinions we don’t like.

I’m not defending the guy. I’m just appalled that politicians can now decide, apaprently on a whim (see previous comments re: Keith Vaz) who can enter the country, or express what opinions. Not a healthy state of affairs in a democracy. More Robert Mugabe-esque control from our beloved leader

(Comparing our government’s attitude to freedom of speech with that of Zanu-pf under Robert Mugabe does not really help. Mugabe arranges for the murder of opposition journalists. A version of Godwin’s law relating to Zimbabwe is needed…

😉 )

Did anyone see how uncomfortable Liam Byrne looked on last night’s Question Time when it was pointed out to him the Ibrahim Mousawi, chief spokesman for Lebanese group Hizbollah, was allowed to enter the UK to make a series of speeches that could easily be described as racially inflammatory.

I think I almost saw a politician stuck for words

This dutch chap is awaiting prosecution for stirring up racial hatred in Holland – do we really want him here?

I think the definition of racial hatred in Holland is different than the UK so we need to apply our own tests.

I think we should do what we can to keep radical loonies out of the country, be they democratically elected, right wing politicians or indocrtrinated, religious zealots

You cover a lot of ground and what you consider a “radical loony” may have a valid argument. If we can be sure they are harmful and sure they trying to incite racial hatred then I am with you, however we cant rely on other governments to make this decision for us. I recall Nelson Mandella was once perceived as an enemy of the South African government. An extreme example I know but each government has its own agenda.
I think we undermine the impartiality of our own democratic system by not allowing him in to say what he has to say. We then make up our minds once informed.
Established laws allow us to throw him out again.

Sonor
While I agree that the principle of freedom of speech must be defended, there are far more worthy causes to stand up and protect in regards to freedom of speech over than Wilders and his views.

WRONG We most have to defend [political]fredom of speech when the views expressed are the most offensive to us and we disagree with them the most.
Would it really be freedom of expressions if all you could express was a view shared by the government?
Wilders is an odious offensive bigoted racist but we defeat him with words and arguments not bans.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

You don’t like the government’s actions?

We live in a ‘democracy’. Form your own party, and then you can challenge the government, possibly even become the government.

So, come on, how many of you lot have joined a political party, formed your own, or even written to your MP about this? Most of you lot wouldn’t have the balls to cross a road, let alone actually get of yer hairy arses to do something about something.

Or you could just stick to your curtain-twitching…

I think we should tolerate those who tolerate others.

I have no respect for those who have no respect for others.

Let’s just face facts. We find Islam a threat. Not even those who follow this religion know all the facts or repreentation.

I know terrorists use any religion for themselves etc.

I also find the lack of Muslims speaking out against hatred etc.

I respect any people but not the cultural values and I think both sides of the arguement should be heard.

Personally I see no difference between Nazis and many religions.

Peace people

We find Islam a threat

Who’s ‘we’? I don’t find Islam a threat; in fact, it’s a big part of the lives of many of my own family, and it seems to have an overall positive effect on them.

I have no respect for those who have no respect for others.

Personally I see no difference between Nazis and many religions.

Hardly respectful to the vast majority of religious people, that.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that…………… Not a healthy state of affairs in a democracy

This guy is not a UK citizen. Therefore he doesn’t enjoy the same rights, freedoms and privileges as UK citizens do. Do you think that the fact he would not have the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections even if he lived here, is also an infringement of his democratic rights ?

Whilst the burden of proof might be higher for a UK citizen, the fact that Geert Wilders is a waiting prosecution by the Dutch authorities for “incitement to hatred and discrimination” is sufficient cause to reasonably believe that a criminal offence might be committed – after all, he wasn’t coming here on a shopping trip.

Even under EU law, EU citizens do not have an alienable right to enter the UK. If the UK authorities believe that allowing entry to any foreigner is not conducive to the public good, then they may be banned.

I have no problem with that, and it is not a “freedom of speech” issue. It is about the democratic right of the UK government to protect it’s citizens from any possible destructive actions by an undesirable alien.

If that chunt had come here, then there would undoubtedly have been clashes between Nazi thugs and anti-racist protestors. This may well have endangered public safety. And cost the taxpayer thousands in policing. So, they save the bother, by simply banning him.

Good call, IMO…

I wonder how many of the Sun + Daily Fail readers on here would be up in arms about ‘freedom of speech’ if it were in fact an ‘Islamic Extremist’ refused entry?

there would undoubtedly have been clashes between Nazi thugs and anti-racist protestors

Because he was showing a film in the House of Lords, with no great publicity (had he not been banned)? Get real.

When the government banned racist bigots from entering the country to speak their views,
I remained silent;
I was not a racist bigot.

When they stopped people who’s views they didn’t agree with from speaking in public,
I remained silent;
I didn’t want to talk in public.

When they prevented members of other political parties from expressing themselves,
I remained silent;
I was not a member of a political party.

When they stopped me from expressing my views on internet forums,
there was no one left to speak out.

There are always clashes, at these sort of events. There would have been enough publicity via tinternet, for people to be aware of when and where the event was taking place. There would have been trouble. There’s enough shit surrounding this bloke, already.

Anyway, I’d ban the chunt just for looking like this:

People can still view the film, if they want. Don’t really need him prattling on about it.

“Mr Wilders is a very gifted and talented politician… the problem was and is that he is a monomaniac… it’s He, Himself, Him “
Bart Jan Spruyt
TV presenter and former political colleague

Forget the HoL; he wants to get himself onto STW!!

Apparently he was here 2 weeks ago but no one bothered to throw him out

aracer – *applause*

The discussion about allowing him entry or not probbly went something like this:

‘Who’s this bloke then?’

‘Some dickhead Dutch MP with a few dodgy views’

‘Is he in any way at all significant?’

‘Not really. Just like a more extreme version of Boris’

‘What, that ****?’

‘Yep’

‘Will it be a load of hassle, if we let him over here’?

‘Probbly’

‘Is it just simpler to ban him?’

‘Yep.’

So, assuming the decision making process did go something along those sort of lines (I suspect that apart from them dressing it up in fancier language and not being quite so explicit you’ve summed it up pretty well), is it a good thing for our government to be making such arbitrary decisions of who to let into the country or not, without any legal justification? How far is that really from what Mugabe does?

Well done aracer for the parody of that world famous anti-Nazi quote.

And how fitting that you should use it to defend a man who wants to form an alliance with the neo-Nazi party Vlaams Belang.

A party which has as one of their main policies “Full and unconditional amnesty for people convicted for collaboration with Nazi Germany after World War II”

.

I suspect that all the victims of Nazism would want to thank you for that.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wilders hasnt ever called for the destruction of a sovereign state, or the the beheading of unbelievers, or for women to be wrapped in sheets dumped in a hole and stoned to death? So why do some people on here lump wilders alongside Islamic Extremists? It seems that opinions of a lot of left-leaning people are too warped to justify.

Our Government is become more facsist as time goes on, very scary, and all the while their supporters call other’s opinions “Nazi” which is a bit offensive to nations like the Netherlands who lived under a Nazi regime.

GG – you seem to be completely missing the point of what I wrote, along with the meaning behind Niemöller’s poem. If you think I’m defending Wilders, then presumably you also think Niemöller was defending communists?

He looks like a slightly fatter version of Max Zorin, the Bond villain in A View To A Kill.