Flush with victory
The chief foe of freedom of speech and resistance to the jihad in Britain exults in his victory. “Wilders’ ban is in Britain’s best interests,” by Lord Nazir Ahmed in The Guardian, February 13 (thanks to all who sent this in):
When I found out that Geert Wilders was planning to come to Britain and that Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his film, I wrote to the Home Office, the leader of the House of Lords and Black Rod to say that his presence would lead to the incitement of religious and racial hatred, which constitutes a public order offence.
The question is: who would have been inciting that religious and racial hatred? Wilders, or Muslim protesters calling for his head, burning flags, etc.?
What has Lord Ahmed done about the Muslim preachers who are busy inciting religious hatred within Britain, and have been doing so for years?
I pointed out that Wilders is already facing a serious charge in his home country for inciting racial hatred. Furthermore, Cox and Pearson could hardly use an argument for free speech to justify giving him this platform because Wilders himself is calling for the banning of the Qur’an.
Wilders was calling for consistency in the application of Dutch law, and actually opposes hate speech measures. Full explanation here.
Wilders’ film, Fitna, takes a lot of Qur’anic verses out of context and relates them to some terrible terrorist events, connecting them as though such acts are a religious teaching. I thought this would lead to extremist groups from both sides — far-right organisations like the BNP and extremist Muslims — rallying behind him.
Bringing in the BNP is just a cheap shot, an attempt at demonization. What Ahmed doesn’t mention, not surprisingly, is that the film also shows Muslims themselves using the verses Wilders quotes to incite their coreligionists to violence and hatred. And what has Ahmed done to disabuse those “extremist Muslims” of their Misunderstanding of Islam? Why, exactly nothing, of course. His ire is directed solely and wholly against Wilders for reporting on their activities.
As a result of my letters, the home secretary wrote to Wilders to say his presence would “threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK”, and that therefore he was banned from entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence would be a threat to national security, public order or the safety of its citizens. I agree with her assessment. In the past, we have refused entry to people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi and others because of the language they have used, which could incite hatred and violence.
Qaradawi was barred from Britain in 2008, but he entered Britain freely in 2004, was welcomed as a friend by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, and even defended suicide bombing while there.
In an article in the Spectator, Melanie Phillips falsely claims that I had threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to demonstrate against Wilders. As a result, I have had hundreds of abusive emails, phone calls and threats from around the world to my office, my staff and myself.
Here Lord Ahmed takes the predictable tack of trying to portray himself as the victim. This is a tried-and-true element in the arsenal of jihadists and their allies and dupes.
And as for the “10,000 Muslims” charge, I am sure that Melanie Phillips will provide documentation forthwith.
The Quilliam Foundation says it disagrees with the ban, but it doesn’t represent the masses and it doesn’t have the support of the majority of the Muslim community. I represent views that I believe are in the best interests of our country.