Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The UK does a Chamberlain..
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2148362.ece/Geert_Wilders_refused_entry_to_UK
Basically, a politician (Geert Wilders) from another EU nation (Netherlands) is barred entrance to the UK because his views piss of the local Muslims. He was invited by a member of Parliament to come to the UK to discuss his views, but the Muslims threatened with all kinds of upheaval. And what does the UK's government do? Instead of guaranteeing someone
Nothing new.
The West has been overrun by appeasing wussies and normative idealists.
"Wilders, who faces prosecution by an Amsterdam court for inciting hatred and discrimination"
He is even being prosecuted in his own country 
.
I've never heard of him but his views must be pretty extreme. This may be a case of a lack of freedom of speech but personally I don't think total freedom of speech is a good thing because people misuse the right and spread hate. The UK was just as intolerant of Abu Hamza (as far as the law allowed) so double standards cannot be claimed.
Who exactly is being appeased here?
For it to be comparable to the 1930s you are suggesting it is radicals and terrorists. In what way are extremists and terrorists being appeased when over the last few years there have been toughened laws and the right of the government to detain suspects without charge.
Are you suggesting that normal, good people who just get on with their lives are being appeased? In which case, there is no comparison to the 1930s.
People teaching and spreading hatred are not welcome, whatever their creed. This guy should not be welcome just like Abu hamza isn't.
"He is even being prosecuted in his own country tongue. "
He's not a small fry right wing nut. Geert Wilders has a large following, a following that has steadily been increasing, up to the point where in recent polls he holds 23+- seats in Parliament. ( out of 150)
His prosecution has caused quite an uproar, even amongst his opposition. It is believed that the way we see Freedom of Speech in the Netherlands is being threatened. The charges were brought up by Muslim and Muslim loving interest groups anyway.
"Who exactly is being appeased here? "
Muslims having a fit are beaing appeased.
"People teaching and spreading hatred"
He has never spread hate, or teaching it for that matter. Just so you know, he has not been convicted and he probably won't be.
He might not be a small fry right wing nut, but that doesn't stop him being a right wing nut. Just because he has support doesn't mean that he is right or that he should be allowed to spread hate messages. Thinking back to your 1930s comparison, are there any examples from history of people spreading hugely damaging hate messages who gained a lot of support? Did that make those people right?
I have to highlight again that I don't know this guy or exactly the kind of thing he says, I am working on the hypothesis that he is along the same lines as the BNP (British National Party). If he is then good, I am glad he is not allowed. If he is actually a reasonable guy then you may have a point
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> Who exactly is being appeased here? >
I'm talking about in general
Though in general Westerners have become too soft and too willing to accommodate..
<People teaching and spreading hatred are not welcome, whatever their creed. This guy should not be welcome just like Abu hamza isn't.>
But apparently the politician in question is not a "I hate muslim scum!" right wing nut.
And there's nothing wrong with spreading messages of hate, as long as the solution proposed isn't something radical and crazy.
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> He might not be a small fry right wing nut, but that doesn't stop him being a right wing nut. Just because he has support doesn't mean that he is right or that he should be allowed to spread hate messages. Thinking back to your 1930s comparison, are there any examples from history of people spreading hugely damaging hate messages who gained a lot of support? Did that make those people right?
I have to highlight again that I don't know this guy or exactly the kind of thing he says, I am working on the hypothesis that he is along the same lines as the BNP (British National Party). If he is then good, I am glad he is not allowed. If he is actually a reasonable guy then you may have a point>
See that's exactly the problem. "Rights." You imply they exist beyond custom and are absolute, which is nothing more than religious nonsense. Rights are customs that serve a practical purpose in advancing mutual interests.
He does not have a right to do what he does, but he doesn't need one. He only needs the power to do it. And when poor, working class Muslims are decreasing the efficiency of the market and leeching off welfare, it's understandable for someone to be upset. Yes I don't condone preaching a message of extermination or repatriation, but in the former case it's understandable and the issue should not be neglected and dismissed as "hate."
Maybe the right in Europe has not been very clear or is nutty. But I have not heard of anyone in Europe being taken seriously who promoted merit-based immigration restrictions, and the removal of immigration requirements based on diversity and asylum. You guys honestly seem very sensitive about your diversity and asylum values, and any talk about increased selectivity based on merit is dismissed as right wing nuts. For example, when Denmark increased its immigration restrictions, Europe branded it racist. WTF?
"But apparently the politician in question is not a "I hate muslim scum!" right wing nut"
If that is the case, then maybe you are right. Like I said, I don't know who this guy is, but the fact he is being prosecuted in his own country and is being refused entry to a fellow EU country kind of sends out the signals that he is a right wing nut. Like I said, I am speaking hypothetically if this guy is how I imagine him, which he may not be.
In what situation do you think it is ok to spread messages of hate?
"Muslims having a fit are beaing appeased"
Bief, then there is no comparison to the 1930s. In the 1930s truly evil people who went on to do a lot of damage to humanity were appeased. Here, a large community of peaceful people are being "appeased". Can you not spot the difference?
He can't be compared to Hitler. He's never actively atacked Muslims, rather the extremes of the ideology called Islam, which in the Netherlands there are a lot of. Mostly, he pisses people off with the blunt truth, which is not a common practice in Dutch politics.
There was a time people would call him borderline racist, now most people call it being realistic (even a lot of Moderate muslims). Yes he's blunt and yes does not nuance his sentences. But no way is he near the level of Hitler or even Abu hamza for that matter.
As for the BNP, that political part is not outlawed in the UK, is it? So if he was on par with them, even then there would be no grounds for refusing him entry.
"And when poor, working class Muslims are decreasing the efficiency of the market and leeching off welfare, it's understandable for someone to be upset"
Why mention the word 'muslim' though? It is a valid political view to be upset with poor, working class people leeching of welfare. What is the relevance that some are muslim? Why differentiate?
I wasn't really comparing him to Hitler.
By claiming the UK has done a Chamberlain, you are comparing the Muslim population of the UK with Nazis, which is stupid. My Hitler reference was trying to illustrate how teaching hatred can be damaging and that even though someone has a lot of support, it doesn't mean they are correct.
No, the BNP are not outlawed in the UK, but that doesn't mean we want any more raving rascist loonies in town.
"Bief, then there is no comparison to the 1930s. In the 1930s truly evil people who went on to do a lot of damage to humanity were appeased. Here, a large community of peaceful people are being "appeased". Can you not spot the difference?"
Appeasement is what it is, no matter for whom it is being done for. The sabre rattling of the Muslim populace was enough to destroy the freedom of speech and freedom of movement for a foreign politician. What if their distaste for Geert Wilders would be directed to all Dutch politicians whenever they say something that doesn't suit them, bar them all as well?
> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:
> "And when poor, working class Muslims are decreasing the efficiency of the market and leeching off welfare, it's understandable for someone to be upset"
Why mention the word 'muslim' though? It is a valid political view to be upset with poor, working class people leeching of welfare. What is the relevance that some are muslim? Why differentiate?>
Because it has to do with your values of diversity. There is no practical reason to have relaxed immigration laws to advance the values of diversity, which it seems to me is the only reason they were invited. And any suggestion of increased selectivity based on merit seems to be a sensitive issue. Look at Denmark, which has been criticized after it instituted immigration reforms.
I can't knowledgably carry on talking about this one guy, because like I have kept saying, I don't know who he is, so whether what he has said or not is as trivial as you make it sound by saying his words "don't suit" British muslims I couldn't say. It is true that the Muslim community in the UK and in other parts of Europe can sometimes be oversensitive to what other people would just class as European values of speech, for example the Danish Mohammed cartoons. However, there is a danger that incidents like that can be used as an excuse so people can say "oh, they;re just over reacting again" when someone actually is stepping over the line and actually spreading hatred.
Immigration in the Netherlands is also something I can't knowledgably talk about, but if immigration is a problem why aren't you talking about immigration instead of muslim immigration? Immigration arguments are very thinly veiled rascism though. In the UK nobody cares about the Australians working behind the bars but as soon as the bigots hear someone whose first language isn't English or see someone not white they start having a fit and calling for immigration quotas.
Because they cant deal with people that are different then them.
I'm talking to my friends in a different language and this guy comes in saying that I should talk the national language. -What gives? Why are you listening to my conversation anyway? Who gives you the right to meddle in my conversation? Bugger off and talk to your own friends in your own incoherent dialect.
"Immigration in the Netherlands is also something I can't knowledgably talk about, but if immigration is a problem why aren't you talking about immigration instead of muslim immigration?"
Immigration is not the problem, immigrants back then worked to hard to be a nuisance. It's the 2nd and 3rd generation, the children of the original immigrants, whom are causing problems.
Anyhow, if we can't carry this on then I'll just wait and see what happens.. Geert Wilders said he'd travel to the UK regardless. He is ofcourse using this whole ordeal for more votes.
>He's not a small fry right wing nut. Geert Wilders has a large following, a following that has steadily been increasing, up to the >point where in recent polls he holds 23+- seats in Parliament. ( out of 150)
Uh,he better watch his back.Else he might do a pim fortuyn.
Wilders is best known for his criticism of Islam, summing up his views as being that 'I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam'.[3] Wilders believes that all Muslim immigration to the Netherlands should be halted and all settled immigrants should be paid to leave.[3] Referring to the increased population of Muslims in the Netherlands, Wilders has said:
"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[21]
He has also referred to Mohammed as "the devil".[20]
Given that Wilders has called for the banning of Islamic books while simultaneously arguing for his own personal freedom of speech, editorials in The Montreal Gazette and The New York Times have accused him of hypocrisy .[48][36]
Wilders published his political manifesto in March 2005. It had ten key points:
yes yes, FREE SPEECH
BUT FU____ THOSE MUSLIMS
Theo,
His political manifesto does not seem like hate-mongering to me, and it does not seem consistent with the quotes of him. I don't know, maybe you Canadians consider Uni-culturalism and limited immigration racist and hatred, but I don't. I consider it pragmatism.
Willers was told he would not be admitted because his visit would be a "threat to social order."
This is true because if he spoke at the House of Lords,
a) Acting just like Nazis 70 years ago, thousands of Vlaams in Britain will rampage in the streets
b) Acting just like Nazis 70 years ago, thousands of British Communists will rampage in the streets
c) Acting just like Nazis 70 years ago, thousands of Norwegian Jews in Britain will rampage in the streets
d) Acting just like Nazis 70 years ago, thousands of Muslims in Britain will rampage in the streets
" * Banning Islamic headwear in public functions,
* Ending all admittance of asylum seekers,
* Creating a maximum limit of 5000 political refugees,
* Creating a 5 year moratorium on bride taking from foreign countries,
* Changing prisoner laws to house 5 in one cell,
* Building feeding camps and discipline schools,
* Expanding the police while using the army within public zones,
* Deporting criminals with a dual nationality,
* Banning Islamic schools,
* Test school children about the Dutch national identity,"
I don't see any hate or racism, only pragmatic and realistic measures to counter the major problems in our country.
> BiefstukFriet wrote:
I don't see any hate or racism, only pragmatic and realistic measures to counter the major problems in our country.
theo is a socialist, anything that goes against her goals she slanders and calls racism, to scare people from believing it. if she supports robbing people of their money by force, why would she have a problem with slander and misleading people? she doesnt.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The UK does a Chamberlain..
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.