Miliband bans Geert Wilders

Let's imagine the boot was on the other foot, though: if there were an English BNP MP who was banned from entering the Netherlands because it was feared that his Islamophobic message would stir up racial hatred and lead to protests on the part of Dutch Muslims, would we agree with the Dutch authorities' actions? Probably, most people would. Or what if Wilders was speaking out against gays or against a particular ethnic minority as a racial rather than religious minority, a la Enoch Powell?

At what point does a message cross the line between acceptable free speech and incitement to hatred and violence? Islam is a soft target in this respect: because most liberal Western people mistrust and disagree with Islam in quite fundamental ways, they tend to be more open and tolerant towards prejudiced opinions about Islam. This allows Islam to be used as a pretext and a front enabling what are basically racist views and a far-right political agenda to be made out to be a reasonable, even 'objective', critique of an ideology and belief system.

The irony is that Wilders tries to make Islam out to be fascist! Case of the pot calling the kettle black. The guy is a racist scumbag; and though I generally regard him as a hypocritical sycophant, I agree with Milliband's actions, if not his rather tame justification of them. And shame on the House of Lords for airing such drivel, and to the UKIP for associating itself with it. Interestingly, on the BNP website an article reporting on Nick Griffin's signing of a petition opposing the Dutch authorities' prosecution of Wilders immediately precedes another item protesting against the Gwent police's flying of the rainbow flag to mark support for LGBT month. Which perhaps indicates that my comparison between Wilders' Islamophobia and homophobia is not far off the mark: he appeals to the same far-right prejudices. Replace the word 'Islam' with 'Asians' or 'Pakis' - which is the group targeted - and I think even naive liberals defending Wilders' right to free speech in this matter might realise what they are condoning.

Wilders may be islamophobic, that much seems fairly certain, but I'm not aware that he incites hatred and violence. And if incitement to violence is a crime, then Islam, and most other organised religions, have a far far longer rap sheet than Wilders.

The film is one-sided and horrific, but it's not offensive to me, and it shouldn't be offensive to anyone who is opposed to far-right militant Islam. There was a lot of crap in what Wilders had to say but it wasn't offensive either, contentious perhaps, but offensive?...No.

"if incitement to violence is a crime, then Islam, and most other organised religions, have a far far longer rap sheet than Wilders".

Possibly true; but would English people, whether Christian or not, feel happy about an Iranian ayatollah or an extremist imam coming into England with a video showing scenes of US and British violence in Iraq and quoting passages of the Bible to show that that violence was grounded in Christian teachings? Such a thing would both give offence, to us, and be offensive, intrinsically. Equally, Wilders' insinuating little video both gives offence to many English Muslims and is offensive, both by that token and by the fact that it's essentially a form of mendacious propaganda trying to stir up Islamophobia.

If Wilders had been allowed to be present at the screening of his film in the House of Lords, this would have been used by him and the BNP to give spurious credibility and respectability to their nasty views about Muslims. Now, however, UKIP have been isolated on this topic and look like sad xenophobic obsessives for having wanted to support Wilders' trip and his agenda. And maybe there was also a hidden diplomatic and legal dimension: the British government didn't want to be seen to be lending any kind of support, even if just moral, to Wilders in his fight against prosecution by the Dutch authorities.

I think, perhaps, the difference between us is respect for religion - I think religion is fair game. To me it's an ideology and should be subject to the same level of criticism as any other ideology.

Extremist imans do, and have, come to Britain, and Christianity ought to be big enough to take such criticism. The line you draw, I suppose, is where criticism becomes incitement. I don't believe that Wilders is directly inciting violence in the way that some imans are.

Wilders video may give offence to many English Muslims but it's the duty of moderate Muslims to expose it for the propaganda that it is. Extremists will find any anti-Islam message "offensive", the moderates will only find this offensive if there is an element of the truth to it - and that's a discussion that we and they need to have.

The bottom line is that banning Wilders has had the reverse effect to what was intended. It's a PR coup for Wilders, the BNP and extremist Muslims. It also undermines the principle of freedom of speech, because people like me (and I think that there are a lot like me) see this as pandering to Muslim (and religious) sensibilities, as Minette Marrin suggests it is about putting public order above principles - appeasement of a vocal minority. That's no way for society to operate. No group, minority or majority, should be beyond criticism, especially when it's the threat of public disorder and violence that wins them that privilege.

This decision sets a precedent that there is no principle other than "community cohesion", that the Government can just decide freedom of speech on a national security basis. Screw that. And screw Miliband.

I think it's a PR coup for Wilders, either way: now he can reinforce his message that he's a victim of censorship and government suppression; however, if he'd been allowed in, he could have made out the UK government was being more tolerant than the Dutch authorities. Win-win for him.

I think maybe the diplomatic and legal side of things was the most important factor: the UK government is sending out a message to the Muslim world that it does not condone Islamophobic prejudice; and this is part of the Obama-led drive to tone down the language on the War on Terror and show a more Muslim-friendly face. But I don't think it's about free speech because no one's actually suppressing Wilders' message; just not giving any kind of official succour to him, which I approve of.

Last time I looked we were signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights with the Netherlands, and we were lecturing China on freedom of speech.

If the Government wants to send out a strong message to the Muslim world, then Miliband should get up on a podium and oppose Wilders' message. That way he'd earn my respect without giving succour to Wilders. He'd also be sending out a stronger and more important message to the Muslim world - that this is how we do things in free countries.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

Let's remember what has been done here. A democratically elected MP from one of our closet neighbours, and oldest allies, is being prevented from taking up an invitation to speak in the UK Parliament. By David Miliband?

"Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas."

Yes, but would we give a parliamentary platform to an elected Holocaust denier or someone arguing that the state of Israel should be abolished because they're Zionist-Fascists, as 'demonstrated' by their recent actions in Gaza? Of course, people can hold and propagate these views; but should they be given a platform in the UK parliament to expound them?

In any case, we all know it wasn't ultimately Miliband who was denying Wilders entry: it was our mutual chum, Gordon Brown - nothing of this importance can happen in his government without his nod. Brown has failed to establish any position at all on Islam, the Middle East conflict or how to counteract the threat of terrorism, merely regarding it as a security issue, as in Miliband's statement. This is the sort of vacuum that people like Wilders thrive on. So I agree with you that Brown et co should take a more principled and definite stand on what is or is not acceptable, rather than dressing it up as a security issue. Then we can all have an open debate about it.

If parliament is sovereign, then yes anyone can be given a platform. Whether or not they should be is a matter for parliament (not Brown or Miliband)

britologywatch describes Islam as a 'soft target' (apropos freedom of speech) which possibly overlooks the fact that Wilders has been under 24-hour police protection since 2004.

From The Times, 20 November 2004:

"A video circulating on the internet offered 72 virgins in paradise to any Muslim who beheaded him."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article393161.ece

Miliband, on behalf of HMG, has taken the path of least resistance, as they do and have done conspicuously before.

If Miliband wants to bans Wilders he should tell us what the threat is to public safety, and from where that threat comes. And also under which law someone can be prevented from addressing the UK Parliament.

If Wilders was going to denounce Islam from a soap-box in the middle of Bradford city centre then I would understand the public safety argument. But as I understand it it's just a totalitarian ban on an individual and a point of view.

"If parliament is sovereign, then yes anyone can be given a platform. Whether or not they should be is a matter for parliament (not Brown or Miliband)".

Agreed; but then I'm not sure how it would work in this case, given that it was an invitation from the House of Lords - perhaps deliberately so, in that they might have been expecting to be turned down by the Commons. And even if the Commons a) had jurisdiction in this matter and b) voted to refuse to let Wilders in, that would not of itself make it a sound decision, given that it would probably have been a whipped vote or one where the usual party-political pressures were brought to bear.

I'm agreeing with the decision not the way it was made. And I can't really feel too sorry for Wilders needing police protection: he's not a champion for freedom but a bigot and a racist. That doesn't make the threats he's under acceptable; nor the incitement to violence against him that certain Islamic groups may have been guilty of. Two wrongs don't make a right. But Wilders knew what he was getting into when he took his stand.

"But as I understand it it’s just a totalitarian ban on an individual and a point of view."

Perhaps the real point about parliamentary sovereignty is that the Commons hasn't stood up to Brown and Miliband, and demanded a vote, even on the point of principle. You could say this demonstrates how pathetic our parliament has become in terms of standing up for liberty. Or perhaps they actually agree Wilders shouldn't be let in. It would be interesting to test parliamentary opinion, though.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The 'two wrongs' which you manage to couple in the same sentence are simply incommensurable, as I'm sure you know.

"But Wilders knew what he was getting into when he took his stand."
I think he would agree with you on this point.