Behind Blue Eyes

The exclusion from the United Kingdom of Dutch MP Geert Wilders is an outrage. We should not be banning the entry of politicians from allied democracies. We should not, as a general rule, be keeping out people who have controversial views per se.

In general I approve of the government having the power to block particular individuals from entering the UK. That power is very limited within the EU, because of the principle of equal treatment: as a citizen of an EU country, Mr Wilders should expect to be treated by the British state in the same way that a British citizen would be. This seems to have been got around by a loophole which I would bet a cup of tea was not intended to keep out elected politicians.

The reason that this exclusion is so outrageous is that the government has been perfectly happy to let in far more extreme people in the recent past. Ken Livingstone even shared a platform with Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a man who described homosexuality as an “unnatural and evil practice”. The authorities were quite happy to allow Abu Hamza incite hatred on the streets of North London. But when it’s a western politician invited to the UK by British parliamentarians to talk about his film, he is arrested at the airport and sent home with a flea in his ear.

How is that for consistency? Why is this government so in hock to the extremist Islamic tendency? What hold do they have over our government? When 10,000 protesters were threatened, why did the government not say “bring it on?”. Why is freedom of speech sacrosanct for one type of “extremist” but not for another? Why are our spineless “leaders” so afraid of “offending” certain interest groups?

I have not watched Mr Wilders’ film, but I now will make a point of doing so. This case has done nothing to encourage “community cohesion” and everything to bring a brighter spotlight on Mr Wilders and his views. I don’t know what he believes in or what he promotes, but as the saying goes I will defend to the death his right to say it.

If Britain no longer stands for freedom of speech in the face of an angry mob, what does it stand for? What is the point of a “war on terror” abroad when at home the government is capitulating to exactly the kind of thought-fascism our brave brothers and sisters are fighting against in Afghanistan?

Update: I have now watched the film. Fairly uncontroversial if a bit childish. A few shots of terrorist attacks next to selected verses of the Qur’an. The film’s main point is that Islam does not sit well with Western liberalism. It seems as if Western liberalism is dead in the United Kingdom.

Update 2: Keith Vaz was put up to defend the government’s decision. His view: you want free speech, go to Holland. Says it all. I’m packing my bags.

Update 3: Bishop Hill compares this battle to an older one