Britain trades free speech for security

by Michael Johnson Michael Johnson worked as a reporter and editor in New York, Moscow, Paris and London over his journalism career. He is now based in Bordeaux, France, where he writes for the International Herald-Tribune and other publications. He covered European technology for Business Week for five years, and served nine years as chief editor of International Management magazine. In 1990 he was appointed chief editor of the French technology weekly 01 Informatique where he worked as Editorial Director for two years. He also spent four years as Moscow correspondent of The Associated Press. He is the author of four books and recently edited “24/7 Innovation” for an Accenture consultant and “Nokia: The Inside Story”, written by historian Martti Haikio, for the Nokia Corporation. A fluent French speaker, he also speaks Russian. 23.02.2009
Keywords:

Wilders was denied entry because he was considered a public danger. Allowing him into the country would "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety in the UK," said a letter to Wilders from the British Home Office. Indeed, a Muslim member of Parliament did threaten to mobilize 10,000 faithful to besiege Parliament if Wilders were allowed in to host a showing of his 17-minute video "Fitna".

On orders from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Wilders was detained briefly at London's Heathrow Airport and sent home. He was attempting to enter Britain to accept an invitation from a group in the House of Lords to screen "Fitna", a scorching indictment of radical Islam. ("Fitna" is an Arabic term meaning "disagreement and division among people" or a "test of faith in times of trial".)

The Dutch are also attempting to silence Wilders in his own country, launching criminal proceedings against him for "inciting hatred and discrimination" and "insulting Muslim worshippers" through his public statements and the same film that sparked his British ban. The Dutch have been debating the prospect of a "Muslim tsunami" in their country for the past few years, although studies disagree on the possibility of Muslims tipping the balance against the traditional Christian culture.

The video, which has been available for free viewing on several internet sites for nearly a year, juxtaposes aggressive citations from the Koran with videos of recent Islamic extremist atrocities and incitements from the pulpit to crush infidels. Inevitably, the net effect is to paint all of Islam with the radical brush.

Part 1 can be viewed at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5kcev1K-NOc

Part 2 can be viewed at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdLMFs4fv4E

The implications of the incident at Heathrow are broader than the suppression of a single film, however. Europe is feeling pressure from the worldwide Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which seeks to stamp out Islamophobia and blasphemy against Islam, trends that it believes Wilders encourages.

Islamophobia, as defined by the OIC, encompasses
European immigration controls, anti-terrorist measures, and, in the case of the Netherlands, efforts to defend its culture and national identity.

Wilders has already shown his film to Denmark's parliament and intends to take it to Italy and the U.S. House of Representatives in the coming weeks.

The Heathrow incident seems to have rattled the UK government, which apparently felt the immediate need to calm Muslim sensitivities whatever the backlash from non-Muslims. It may be a muddle, but it is far from a renunciation of basic freedoms. A number of high-profile cases protecting free speech have preceded the Wilders case, including the support of Salman Rushdie against a worldwide fatwa for his novel "Satanic Verses", and the arrest and expulsion of radical clerics who preached violence and intolerance.

The Wilders case raises memories of Voltaire's celebrated remark that he might disagree with something a person says, but he defends his right to say it. In other words, Western culture mandates that Wilders' views - and his video -- deserve an airing, with judgment left to free-thinking viewers.


See also related article by Tawfik Hamil: "Islam Should Prove It is a of Peace"


Please watch Geert Wilders being interviewed by BBC's Stephen Sackur:

Part 1:


Part 2:




Part 3:




If you wish to comment on this article, you can do so on-line.

Should you wish to publish your own article on the Facts & Arts website, please contact us at .

Rate this article

Click the stars to rate

Share with:

| More

Comments (1)

Congratulations! British Authorities

by Badrul Islam
BBC headlines reports" Banned Dutch MP held at Heathrow -A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" is to be sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK. We wish to congratulate the British Home Secretary and Immigration Authorities at Heathrow Airport for their wise decision. We appreciate BBC's continuous efforts to keep the World informed. This happened on February 12, 2009.

BBC reports that Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders was invited to show his controversial film-(which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism) - in the UK's House of Lords. But Wilders who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home 0ffice. The MP was invited to the House of Lords by the UK Independence Party's Lord Pearson.

"We're coming to this from the angle of freedom of speech," Lord Pearson said. "This man must be allowed to say what he wants, he must answer questions and then everyone can make up their minds. I think this man is raising one of the most important issues of our time. I think it should be discussed more, particularly by the vast majority of the mild Muslim community. They should talk about what the Koran really means. These people are using verses in one of the great religious tracts in history to blow up innocent people. That's what we want to talk about... whether these acts of violence can be rooted in the Koran."

I wonder whether Lord Pearson, as Member of the British Parliament, is aware of the discriminatory treatments mooted out to the British Citizens, often so harshly, that world wide such acts are termed "RACIAL"; does he think that Western society as a whole is free from racialism? Why doesn't he venture to compare those acts with the teachings as inscribed in the Torah, Judaism and the Bible? If he wants to set good example he should begin by first comparing these discriminatory acts with that of his religious beliefs or personal beliefs. Normally a person is inclined to know his/hers own religion; Why Lord Pearson, exceptionally, is interested in a religion that he doesn't believe in?

Purely "from the angle of freedom of speech", I would want to draw the attention of Lord Pearson, to the following for his knowledge:-
1. The Late US President Thomas Jefferson said, ""Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites"

2. The MP Wilder's film "FITNA", and earlier the display of a racial film, "SUBMISSION" by the Dutch film maker, late Theo Van Gogh and the controversial "CARTOON" display by Rose, the Editor of Jyllands-Posten, caused outrage across the Muslim world ...

The New Year, 2009 began with Muslims around the world being taught a lesson in the crudity of racial equations; yes, I am referring to the onslaught by Israel on the Gaza strip. Following the cease fire, the Muslims just heaved a sigh of relief, while the Palestinians in Gaza are yet to recover from the trauma of the war. When the world Leaders are busy in their efforts to find a permanent peace plan, why at this particular time was the Dutch MP Wilders invited by the British Lord Pearson ?

Two lessons, the Leaders and the conscious Citizens, of the world, learn from the above incidents; (1) there are bad Westerners like Lord Pearson, Dutch MP Wilders, late Theo and Rose; these category of people strongly oppose the policy of "Peaceful Co- Existence" in this world and (2) there are intelligent and good Westerners like the British Home Secretary and Immigration Authorities who would correctly and strongly defend the policy and thwart their activities. Fortunately, the majority of the world's Citizens favor the policy.

If, Lord Pearson and the Dutch MP Wilder, have any humane quality, within themselves, I would advise them that it's imperative they examine their own conscience in the light of the "Golden Rule :Treat others as you want to be treated." The same as in written in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. In Islam, Hadith is a compilation of the sayings of the Prophet (SWS); and one of it states, "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself".

Let's consider an example of how the rule is used. President Kennedy in 1963 appealed to the golden rule in an anti-segregation speech at the time of the first black enrollment at the University of Alabama. He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color. Whites were to imagine themselves being black - and being told that they couldn't vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure that they wouldn't - and yet this is how they treated others. He said the "heart of the question is ... whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."
Can we, as conscious Citizen of Bangladesh, draw the attention of the Dutch Government, that in the light of the Golden Rule, the above example quoted of the Late President Kennedy of USA, the British Government's policy of, "Opposing extremism in all forms" and to maintain a respectful and peaceful relations with other Countries, to sincerely examine their existing laws? To encourage "Freedom of Speech" is good; we do so in our Country as well. But inflammatory words and incorrect analysis of verses of the religion that is not of one's belief and or acts that hurts the sentiments of human beings should be prohibited and subject to punishments as per law of the Country.
We understand that this Dutch MP is facing trial under Dutch Laws for inciting hatred. But will he, like the Dutch Author Gerard Reve, be acquitted? In Wikipedia , it is stated that, "In 1966, Dutch author Gerard Reve was prosecuted for blasphemy, after a piece of prose he wrote described making love to God, incarnated in a three year old donkey. He was acquitted on the grounds that this was an artistic expression protected by freedom of speech. Artistic indeed!!
We have read in newspaper that late Theo V.Gogh was murdered by a person identified as an Islamic extremist of dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality. In reply to questions by Police and Journalists, this man said that the Film had hurt his feeling and so he acted to defend his religion. We condemn his actions because his actions do not reflect the true values of Muslims and the teachings of Islam. I mention this here because; it is evident, that neither has achieved anything of "moral value". If this trend continues, than an "Eye for an Eye" would leave this world blind.
The Dalai Lama stated that, "Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal."

With knowledge, correct attitude, and the golden rule we can progress in our moral thinking and build a peaceful and friendlier world. The winds of Change are blowing in the air; let us all, the Leaders and Citizens of the world, pledge to change ourselves, to build a peaceful and friendlier world.


__._,_.___
Report offensive post

Comment this article

Fill in all fields