Dutch MP Denied Entry to Britain!

[amicus]

...but welcomed in the US and appearing on Fox's O'Reilly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7314636.stm

Geert Wilders has released a controversial film about Islam which no TV company would broadcast and some politicians in the Netherlands tried to ban.

The Dutch MP has upset the Muslim world before, by calling for a ban on the Koran and likening it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

~~~

In Wilder's words, "I am disappointed that the British no longer have a free press..." (paraphrase)

He also called Europeans "Cowards!", for failing to come to grips with rising Islamic Terrorism and intimidation in Euro Nations.

?

Amicus

edited to add: http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions..._Wilders_denied_entry_to_Britain_-158076.page




12/02/2009 02:59:29


Dutch MP Geert Wilders denied entry to Britain


As the BBC told the world today, Mr. Wilders, although citizen of another E.U. state and member of his parliament, has been denied entry into Britain for a business visit of British politicians. It is feared that he could be the reason for trouble in the streets...

Mr. Wilders was the person who supported the controversial film "Fitna" and compared the impacts of the religious book behind the criticized religion to that of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

So the motherland of democracy backs off now, lets Asian hate preachers keep on preaching and threatening the host country and the western world, while a brave man who did not duck down and did what a democracy lets him do, publish his opinions, is barred from entrance?

~~~

 

[amicus]

Okay, so you don't get it, eh? Sharia Law, Islamic Law, that treats women as property, is in the courts of Euro Nations already. Euro's, it was said, are cowering in fear of upsetting their Muslim immigrants by even speaking out against it.

Ah, well, at least you know.

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

He has been in the USA and appeared on The O'Reilly Factor today. They showed a few snippets of his film, mostly Muslims ranting incoherently. It had subtitles and, presuming they were accurate, they were speaking strongly against the West, especially the USA.

Apparently, the UK was afraid his presence woulod cause riots, which it might have.

 

[amicus]

The Iranian Dictator was allowed entry into the US and while I did not support that, and it did cause protest. But for the Brits to deny entry to a fellow Euro Parliament member seems rather lame?

Amicus...

 

[Carnevil9]

I saw him on O'Reilly tonight. Incredible that the Brits have become such pussies. Back in the day, James Bond would have taken him out for a martini.......Carney

 

[ishtat]

The British keep out all sorts of riff-raff. Heaps of Americans for example are turned straight round and put on the next plane home.

Usually because the clowns turn up with traceable drugs on their clothes or persons.

 

[oggbashan]

Okay, so you don't get it, eh? Sharia Law, Islamic Law, that treats women as property, is in the courts of Euro Nations already. Euro's, it was said, are cowering in fear of upsetting their Muslim immigrants by even speaking out against it.

Ah, well, at least you know.

Amicus...

In the UK Sharia law is only allowed on the same basis as community mediation between neighbours. Both parties have to agree to use it. Jewish law has been used in the UK for disputes between members of the same synagogue for many years. The Church of England has its own laws for disputes between members of congregations and between vicar and parishoners. None of those laws override UK law.

There is no such thing as Sharia Law - there are multiple interpretations of Sharia. What is meant by Sharia in mainly Muslim countries varies between country and country, district and district. In the UK what Sharia is, or might be depends on the individual preacher.

What is unacceptable is community compulsion to use Sharia when it is contrary to other UK law. A Muslim wife in the UK who wants to leave her abusive husband has more obstacles put in her way than other non-Muslim wives. However there are some support resources available to her that would not be present in a Muslim country. Anyone attempting to coerce her into using Sharia law would be breaking UK law.

Og

 

[manyeyedhydra]

In the UK Sharia law is only allowed on the same basis as community mediation between neighbours. Both parties have to agree to use it. Jewish law has been used in the UK for disputes between members of the same synagogue for many years. The Church of England has its own laws for disputes between members of congregations and between vicar and parishoners. None of those laws override UK law.

There is no such thing as Sharia Law - there are multiple interpretations of Sharia. What is meant by Sharia in mainly Muslim countries varies between country and country, district and district. In the UK what Sharia is, or might be depends on the individual preacher.

What is unacceptable is community compulsion to use Sharia when it is contrary to other UK law. A Muslim wife in the UK who wants to leave her abusive husband has more obstacles put in her way than other non-Muslim wives. However there are some support resources available to her that would not be present in a Muslim country. Anyone attempting to coerce her into using Sharia law would be breaking UK law.

Og

I think some aspects of Sharia law are used to enable Muslim families to get mortgages. I think receiving/paying interest on lent money may be forbidden under some parts of Islamic faith. Not totally sure on this.

The Dutch MP sounds a bit of a plonker, but the British government was probably foolish in denying him entry. Now he gets to be a righteous plonker over in the states.

 

[Scotsman69]

Thank you og, for your measured sense in the face of the usual hysteria from 'amicus'.

Now as to the issue: should Wilders - not a plonker, but in my view a dangerous man - have been denied entry, even though he's an MEP?

Context, which of course 'amicus' hasn't bothered to inform us about, is important.

He wasn't coming to look at the scenery. His trip was a deliberate provocation. Some of his slimy neofascist pals in the UK House of Lords (too many slimy neofascists there) had set up a much-hyped filmshow, over which he was due to preside. It was a deliberate provocation to the Government.

Had he come there would almost certainly have been riots, and people, including the Met Constabulary, would have been hurt, maybe worse. (Neofascist paramilitaries across Europe, and no doubt Islamist extremists too, were mobilising to be in London.) That of course is precisely why the neofascists set the thing up in the first place. They are in the business of attempting to destabilise politically: that is how the extreme right has usually come to power.

So in my view, Big Gordon took the right decision on this occasion. He took a heap of shit of course from the rightwing press (and most of the press here is rightwing). And predictably but belatedly (this is hardly a news story), from the omnipotent 'amicus'.

So tell me 'amicus', had it been your decision, would you have allowed Hitler to visit the USA?

 

[sadangel]

Thank you og, for your measured sense in the face of the usual hysteria from 'amicus'.

Now as to the issue: should Wilders - not a plonker, but in my view a dangerous man - have been denied entry, even though he's an MEP?

Context, which of course 'amicus' hasn't bothered to inform us about, is important.

He wasn't coming to look at the scenery. His trip was a deliberate provocation. Some of his slimy neofascist pals in the UK House of Lords (too many slimy neofascists there) had set up a much-hyped filmshow, over which he was due to preside. It was a deliberate provocation to the Government.

Had he come there would almost certainly have been riots, and people, including the Met Constabulary, would have been hurt, maybe worse. (Neofascist paramilitaries across Europe, and no doubt Islamist extremists too, were mobilising to be in London.) That of course is precisely why the neofascists set the thing up in the first place. They are in the business of attempting to destabilise politically: that is how the extreme right has usually come to power.

So in my view, Big Gordon took the right decision on this occasion. He took a heap of shit of course from the rightwing press (and most of the press here is rightwing). And predictably but belatedly (this is hardly a news story), from the omnipotent 'amicus'.

So tell me 'amicus', had it been your decision, would you have allowed Hitler to visit the USA?

So there was more to this story. Why am I not surprised that both sides of the story weren't shared at the first?!

 

[oggbashan]

So there was more to this story. Why am I not surprised that both sides of the story weren't shared at the first?!

The other side of the story is that we have too many Muslim clerics in this country who have no understanding of the country in which they live. They believe that free speech means that they can say anything.

That isn't true. They cannot advocate religious or racial hatred yet too many do just that. Most do it by implication instead of outright statements but their training outside, and sometimes even inside the UK, does not include tolerance, respect for women's rights that are enshrined in UK legislation, or even consideration of women as members of their community.

Perhaps this will change. It changed in successive waves of immigration into the UK (and into the US) as the younger generations appreciated and used the freedoms their parents and grandparents couldn't understand. During the 19th and early 20th Century immigrants from rural parts of Europe set up enclaves in UK and US cities where they tried to live as if they were still in their patriarchal villages. Much that is said about Muslims and Sharia could have been said then about Jews, Italians, Russians etc. who moved to the UK and the US for a better life. They tried to preserve their traditions - but some of their traditions weren't acceptable in Western democracies.

There has to be compromise between keeping your heritage and living in a wider society. Achieving that compromise can be painful.

Mis-statements and misunderstandings about Sharia don't help. Very few countries, or even districts within countries, have applied Sharia in its extreme literal interpretations. How many Christians outside small sects parts of the US believe in a literal word for word interpretation of the Bible as written for King James? Those few are as unusual as extreme Muslim exponents of the strictest form of Sharia.

Interest payment on a loan can be difficult for devout (not Sharia-strict) Muslims. Most UK banks have a system that will allow Muslims to get finance in a way that complies with their religious practices. That isn't Sharia - that is adapting a product to the market. For centuries the Jews of Europe were the money-lenders, not because they had the most money, but because Christians were not allowed to practise usury. The Church's definition of usury was so restricting that the lender couldn't make a commercial return on a loan. The Jews were not affected by the Church's restriction so became money-lenders (and therefore unpopular) by the Christians' default. Modern banks (except recently) have been much more reasonable about the interest rates but some store cards with 39% interest on outstanding balances should be considered usury even now.

Og

 

[R. Richard]

I think some aspects of Sharia law are used to enable Muslim families to get mortgages. I think receiving/paying interest on lent money may be forbidden under some parts of Islamic faith. Not totally sure on this.

The Q'ran forbids the paying or receiving of interest. However, Musliom banks operate by mean of 'fees.' Let's suppose that a Muslim wants a 100,000 Pound Sterling loan to buy a house. The bank then buys the house and lets the Muslim rebuy the house for 200,000 Pounds Sterling, paid over 20 years. It's exactly the same money that a regular British bank would receive, only it's not nasty interest, but a fee owed to the bank. How do they determine the fee to be paid? Why the Muslim bank checks with regular British banks to find out their current interest rate.

 

[amicus]

"...During the 19th and early 20th Century immigrants from rural parts of Europe set up enclaves in UK and US cities where they tried to live as if they were still in their patriarchal villages. Much that is said about Muslims and Sharia could have been said then about Jews, Italians, Russians etc. who moved to the UK and the US for a better life. They tried to preserve their traditions - but some of their traditions weren't acceptable in Western democracies..."

~~~

Yes, Ogg has a soothing method of ameliorating differences between people, that is what a politician does, sometimes without principle, merely to facilitate transition.

If it were only as simple as implied in the above quote, it would not be worthy of, 'hysteria', or a reasoned warning about possible consequences.

It was Islamic Terrorists that took lives in London, not so very long ago, and in Spain and in Bali and a dozen other locations over the past decade and more.

It is Islamic Terrorism that trains women and children to act as 'human bombs' to kill and frighten a population into non resistance.

There are those who hold that the tenets of the Koran are as militant and pervasive as the premises of Communism and Fascism and students who can document those premises, line by line.

There were and are, pacifist advocates who claimed the 'Comintern' international Communism was a faulty argument, yet it was Soviet weapons that killed Coalition troops in Korea, Vietnam and in Arab Countries that have attacked Israel time and time again and Soviet weapons in early Afghanistan and Soviet weapons in both Gulf War one and two.

The intentions of the Islamic faithful have been sounded loud and clear, world wide, they want a world wide revolution to defeat everything not Muslim around the globe and they have give ample examples of that intent.

This conflict has been ongoing since before the Crusades, a never ending terrible Religious war that has simply moved to the next plateau.

Put your heads in the sand if you must and ignore the signs of the future, but a global conflict is in the making and appeasement is not an answer.

Amicus....

 

[oggbashan]

It was Russian terrorists who took lives across Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

It was Irish and Ulster terrorists who took lives in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain in the late 20th century. The Irish terrorists were partly funded by US citizens.

It was Jewish terrorists who took lives in Palestine in the 1940s.

It was Germans who killed millions of Jews in the 1940s - and gypsies, mentally ill, mentally and physically handicapped, Poles and Russians.

It was West German terrorists who took lives in Europe in the 1960s.

It was Basque terrorists who took lives in Spain, particularly in the Madrid train bombings.

It was Africans who murdered hundreds of thousands in Rwanda.

Hindus have killed Muslims in the Indian sub-continent.

As for the Crusades? The Crusaders killed nearly as many Christians as they did Muslims because they were "different" Christians.

None of them justified their acts with Islam or Sharia.

You have a very selective version of history, Amicus.

Og

 

[Boxlicker101]

The other side of the story is that we have too many Muslim clerics in this country who have no understanding of the country in which they live. They believe that free speech means that they can say anything.

That isn't true. They cannot advocate religious or racial hatred yet too many do just that. Most do it by implication instead of outright statements but their training outside, and sometimes even inside the UK, does not include tolerance, respect for women's rights that are enshrined in UK legislation, or even consideration of women as members of their community.

Perhaps this will change. It changed in successive waves of immigration into the UK (and into the US) as the younger generations appreciated and used the freedoms their parents and grandparents couldn't understand. During the 19th and early 20th Century immigrants from rural parts of Europe set up enclaves in UK and US cities where they tried to live as if they were still in their patriarchal villages. Much that is said about Muslims and Sharia could have been said then about Jews, Italians, Russians etc. who moved to the UK and the US for a better life. They tried to preserve their traditions - but some of their traditions weren't acceptable in Western democracies.

There has to be compromise between keeping your heritage and living in a wider society. Achieving that compromise can be painful.

Mis-statements and misunderstandings about Sharia don't help. Very few countries, or even districts within countries, have applied Sharia in its extreme literal interpretations. How many Christians outside small sects parts of the US believe in a literal word for word interpretation of the Bible as written for King James? Those few are as unusual as extreme Muslim exponents of the strictest form of Sharia.

(snip)
Og

You are somewhat correct, Og, but this is like saying that bananas and lemons are both fruit, and therefore virtually identical.

Immigrants from Europe had been living under customs that were not far from those of the UK or US. Not identical, but similar enough that there was a minimum of problem. Polygamy was not legal in Europe, but it was common in Muslim nations. European men were not allowed to murder their wives or daughters or sisters because they stood on the front porch unescorted by an older male relative. Slavery was illegal in most of Europe in the 19th century, as well as in Englend and in all the US after 1865. It is still widely practiced in Muslim nations. Women were not always treated as full citizens in Europe, but neither were they considered to be chattel as they were in Muslim nations.

What I am saying is that the differences in customs involving those in the great waves of immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries were just custom, and not usually part of religious training. There really wasn't much difference between a Catholic from Poland or Italy and an English Catholic, or a Protestant from Germany or Norway and a Protestant in England. The same is true of members of those religions in the US.

Immigrants from Italy or Poland or HUngary didn't usually go to places of worship and listen to the clergy telling them to kill as many citizens of the host country as they can, but Muslims do just that.

What I am saying is that the differences between early immigrants and recent Muslim immigrants are as different as the differences between lemons and bananas.

 

[amicus]

Well said.