Banning Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the UK, and his deportation from the Heathrew Airport in February 2009, marked the darkest day for "freedom experssion" in modern history...

Geert Wilders denied entry into UK

Nearly a year ago, on February 12, 2009, Dutch MP Geert Wilders, the solitary fighter fighting to save Europe from Islamisation, was denied entry into Great Britain; he was deported from the Heathrow airport. Wilders went to UK to show his 17-minute film, FITNA, to the House of Lords upon invitation by Lord Pearson of the UK Independence Party, but unfortunately he was prevented from crossing the boundary of the Heathrow airport and sent back to the Netherlands. Freedom loving people of the world were shocked by such insult to freedom of expression by the British Government, regarded as the protector of individual freedom and freedom of the press.

Author Denis Schulz, denouncing the incident as “A Sad Day for Freedom of Speech”, wrote:

"He wasn’t carrying the Bubonic Plague or the Black Death; he had all his shots; he was impeccably dressed; Benny Hill would have pronounced him a handsome man in a virile sort of way. He could have been somebody’s Dutch uncle. But there were those, who thought he had come to England to meddle in the country’s affairs; others thought he hoped to stick his finger in the UK’s leaky immigration dike. He was met at the airport by a veritable lynch-mob, waving banners and posters that said Holland Go To Hell and Geert Wilders Is The Christian Terror. He looked like a nice enough guy.”

Schulz added:

“He didn’t have a bomb in his hat—he wasn’t wearing one. He had a smile on his face and he was as blonde as all get-out. He could have passed for Brigitte Bardot’s kid brother or Paris Hilton’s uncle. Maybe he was too blonde, too Aryan. Some people called him a Nazi. All he wanted to do was sit down in the House of Lords for a few minutes, comment on the deteriorating world situation—on immigration, religion, the freedom of speech and show the Lords his movie.  … Yes, it was a victory for the Muslim community but it was a defeat for freedom of speech. It was a very sad day.”

It has been mentioned above that Wilders was due to show his short film FITNA, which criticizes the Qur'an as a "fascist book", and aims to alert Europeans about the danger of Islamization of Europe, on Thursday, February 12, 2009. But, on Tuesday, he received a letter from the UK Home Office refusing him entry, because his opinions "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety". However, he arrived at the Heathrow airport shortly after 2 p.m., and was questioned by immigration officials. On the plane from Amsterdam, Wilders, a Freedom Party MP, told Dutch journalists that he had travelled to Britain in December 2008 without any fuss. "I don't see why there's a problem with me this time," he said, adding: "I don't understand why they allowed me to come before and not now." He also told the BBC that it was a "very sad day" for the UK democracy and added: "Democracy means differences and debate. It's a very sad day when the UK bans an elected parliamentarian... Of course I will come back."

The Dutch ambassador was also present at the Heathrow airport to make clear his government's opposition to the ban on Wilders’ entry into the UK. When asked whether he had a message for the UK government, Wilders said: "I would say to them, 'Even if you don't like me and don't like the things I say then you should let me in for the sake of freedom of speech. If you don't, you are looking like cowards."

It should be mentioned here that Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, while commenting on Wilders and his film FITNA, said: “The film wrongly equated Islam with violence and served ‘no purpose other than to offend’. A year earlier, Wilders described the Koran as a ‘fascist book’, and called for its ban in ‘the same way we ban Mein Kampf”, in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper. “It would have been good for him not to call for the Koran or Islam to be banned. Instead, if he confined himself to call for Muslims to reform their faith by removing the bad bits of the Koran, and for an end to the Islamizing of Europe. To that extent, it would not have been not extreme at all, and indeed reformist Muslims themselves say much the same thing”, Balkenende added.

The spokesman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, while explaining the Wilders issue, said: “The Prime Minister fully supports the decision taken by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.” But, in his reply, Wilders rightly said: “The government's actions had proved that Gordon Brown is the biggest coward in Europe." But the good news was that the screening of FITNA went ahead in the House of Lords as planned, despite Wilder's nonattendance.

Criticism

The question naturally arises: Why the British Government, whose Prime Minister Winston Churchill once fought the Nazis to protect freedom, has played such despicable and cowardly role and gagged the freedom of speech. In this regard, Stephen Brown, in his article “British Parliament Surrenders”, wrote in frontpagemagazine.com: “Islamic intimidation achieved a new high last week when it forced the British Parliament, one of Western civilization's most venerable institutions, to quietly surrender its most basics of freedom.”

“A Muslim member of the House of Lords, Nazir Ahmed, showed the advanced state of Britain's dhimmitude when he threatened to mobilize 10,000 fellow Muslims to block Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders, from entering Westminster. Wilders had been invited by another House of Lords member to show his controversial film, Fitna, last Thursday in a Westminster conference room. Invitations had been sent to all House members to attend the screening that was to be followed "by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion", Stephen added.

It should be mentioned here that Baron Nazir Ahmed, who was born in Pakistan and raised in Britain, forgetting he is part of a liberal democratic system that cherishes freedom of expression and association, reacted with familiar jihadi-style tactics to Wilders' scheduled appearance. Along with his threat to mobilize 10,000 demonstrators to block Wilders' path, it was reported that Ahmed also intended to sue the House of Lords member, who had invited the Dutch politician.

Lord Ahmed, a Labour Party member, was appointed to the House of Lords in 1998, and, according to British law, is a peer for life. He is the first Muslim lord in the modern era and second in British parliamentary history. A predecessor, Baron Stanley of Alderley, had converted to Islam in 1862.

Ahmed's appointment was made possible when Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major constitutional maneuver, "reformed" the House of Lords in 1999, abolishing all hereditary peerages.

“Regarded as a "moderate" Muslim, Ahmed led the first British government-sponsor delegation on a Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. He has opposed international terrorism, women wearing the veil and forced marriages in Britain. Risking his personal safety, Ahmed has also supported the expulsion of violent Islamic radicals from Great Britain. But there is another, more disturbing side to Ahmed's political character. He opposed Salman Rushdie's receiving a knighthood, because Rushdie had "blood on his hands." In 2005, Ahmed also hosted a book launch of a Swedish anti-Semite, Joeran Jermas, in the House of Lords. Jermas's speech, titled `The Jews and Empire', as reported in The Times, contained such niceties as "Your newspapers belong to the Zionists…"; "The Jews like an empire…"; and "This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance…", wrote Stephen Brown.

Muslim appeasement by the Labour Party

It is needless to say that the Labour Party of Britain and its Government led by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown has adopted the policy of Muslim appeasement in a big way and the refusal of Wilders’ entry into the country is a reflection of that policy. The other important measures the Labour Government has taken to please Muslims are allowing special Shariah Courts, provision of haalal food for the Muslims in British eating houses, going soft on Muslim women’s dress code like hijab and headscarf, and so on.

It is to be noted that, in a country, run by a democratic government, it is expected that an individual will cast his vote in favour of a political party of his/her personal choice. But the picture is quite different for Muslims, who live in a non-Muslim majority country; they cast their votes not according to their personal choice but according to the dictates of the clerics. This forms a block-vote and goes for a single political party. As soon as this block-vote attains a sizeable quantum, or becomes a deciding factor for winning or losing election, every political party starts to appease them, hoping that Muslims would cast their votes in its favour. To please Muslims, the government starts providing more and more facilities to them, even at the sacrifice of national interest. And, in this way, the politics of ‘Muslim appeasement’ gains momentum.

In the UK, the number of Muslim voters is rising fast and the Labour Party, to remain in power, has adopted the policy of ‘Muslim appeasement’ as a standard practice to bring Muslim voters to its side. This becomes apparent from the statements of Peter Gerald Hain, a Labour MP and Secretary of State for Wales. On May 12, 2008, he said: “Labour needs to change tack on foreign policy to win back voters, who deserted the party over the Iraq war.” …. “Hundreds of thousands of Muslims had been lost to Labour as a result of the worsening situation in Iraq. … We must win back Muslim voters”, Mr  Hain added.

While commenting on Hain’s statements, a political analyst, said:

“Yes, and we all know how they will attempt to win back the Islamic vote. By pandering to their every whim and demand, by elevating their status over the indigenous population, to an even higher level than it already is. I can understand why they need to do this. Labour is steadily losing support among ordinary Britons, including some alienated sections of the working class. They so heartily despise, as people are increasingly starting to realize what they are about. It is sheer desperation, an unscrupulous attempt to cling onto power whatever the price may be. And without a doubt the Islamic scum will demand a heavy price for the support this despicable government so desperately needs.”