Democracy in Britain threatened?

Lois Hashimoto · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 25 Location: Laval, QC,Canada

I have just learned that Dutch politician Geert Wilders who had been invited to show his film "Fitna" in Britain's House of Lords, was denied entry into your country and sent back to Holland shortly after arrival.

It seems a Muslim lord, Nazir Aahmed, and other Muslim leaders vigorously protested his visit, and this resulted in a dis-invitation being sent to Wilders by the Home Secretary:

"... your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

No one is claiming that the statements Wilders made in the film is false or misleading in any way.

Despite the directive to stay away, Wilders came anyway, in the interest of democracy and free speech, only to be humiliatingly forced on a plane back to Holland.

This is not only outrageous, it is chilling.
I am hoping that as British citizens who enjoy the rights and freedoms of living in a democratic country, you will protest this very dangerous threat to democracy.
_________________
LYH

zombiehellmonkey · Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Posts: 195

Inciting racial hatred is against British law, nobody is above the law. The law is there to protect the people, that is why murderers go to prison. Simple as that. The Home Secretary made a good call, and good riddance IMHO.
_________________
Coming to Hong Kong? Join my expat group for fun and networking! http://www.meetup.com/expats-HK/

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Freedom of Speech needs to be exercised within the confines of the law, which in a democracy, aspires to confine free speech so as not to violate the liberties of others, and not to incite social tension which may lead to serious consequences. In addition, where the law does not cover a special situation, extra constraints can be added.

By merely showing his film, which is known to associate Islam with terrorism, at the House of Lords, this event would send out implicit messages that would destroy the peaceful stance our democracy is adopting towards Islam.

Lois Hashimoto · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 25 Location: Laval, QC,Canada

Edwina, I have read your many posts, and admire your great intelligence.
And so it is with respect and sincerity that I ask you if you have seen this film, to make the judgment that you do?
Is the filmmaker's object to incite hatred against Muslims, or to warn against careless tolerance of Islam jihadism?
Do you know?
Are you willing to let someone make this decision for you? If your freely elected government is being ruled by fear of mob reaction to the showing of a film that apparently no one has accused of containing any untruths, then your freedom of thought and choice has already been ompromised.

It takes extraordinary courage to be an Irshad Manju, whose life would be in danger if she returned to Holland. She also wanted to make a film about Islamist jihadism, having personally experienced it.
_________________
LYH

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Lois Hashimoto,

Government is a responsibility. It isn't about the pursuit of total freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech (within desirable constraints) is a means of good governance as well as a desirable end. This is why democratic societies value it highly, but its value is +ve or -ve depending on circumstances.

To show the film in the House of Lords (which is a legislation/policy function of government) isn't the same as showing it to a private audience. It has very strong political messages which rightly or wrongly send out to the world.

In politics, it isn't what is being said that matters, but what people perceive.

I have no idea what is in the film or who this person is, but I have read on BBC news that this film links Islam with terrorism.

If the film maker portraits terrorism as an inevitable consequence of Islam, then he/she has got to be wrong. One only has to observe that in the real world, most muslims are very peaceful.

If the film shows that many muslims are converted to the pursuit of terrorism through participation in certain activities in the Islamic world, this isn't anything new. This is the radicalisation that every nation is trying to tackle now.

Therefore, what on earth is the point of this film in showing it to policy makers?

If there are important intelligence in the film towards combating terrorism, it should be shown to the secret intelligence agencies. They are not exactly over whelmed with excitement to watch the film either, are they?

Edwina xx

chunxueping · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 749 Location: Beijing, PRC

I think this is difference between societies. In the "New World" countries of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand freedom of speech is a citizens right regardless of offense. In the "Old World", freedom of speech is something that governments "grant" the people on a percieved basis of "what is good for them under the law."

I am not quite sure how anyone can tell what the film is about if nobody can see it, even within the House of Lords, you haven't seen it and no one in the UK will ever get the chance now.

The true offense is that "someone" under the pretense of the rule of law has "decided" that the British people are not mature enough to decide for themselves what they should see.

joybetluck · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 205

Hopefully parliament has finally realised that there is a limit to what the long suffering British tax payer is prepared to pay for defending every expression in English. Utilitarianism is not a dirty word!

It must be both the most talked about and the least read book of recent times. Since it came out in 1988 The Satanic Verses has seemed more a principle to be argued over than a book to discuss.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7889974.stm

Lois Hashimoto · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 25 Location: Laval, QC,Canada

Thank you, Xue-Ping, you have put it in a nutshell!

Besides, Muslims themsellves are often the likeliest to be victims of Jihadists.
In the outrage against Israel in the Gaza war, did anyone mourn for Palestinians who were maimed and murdered by Hamas terrorists?
_________________
LYH

chunxueping · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 749 Location: Beijing, PRC

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

Lois Hashimoto · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 25 Location: Laval, QC,Canada

Thank you, Edwina, you have stated your case simply and clearly,and I must agree with you. To tell you the truth, I doubt very much that Canada's Senate would agree to show the film. They most likely would not extend the invitation in the first place, but on the other hand, if we did, and changed our minds, we would not unceremoniously boot out a representative of a friendly democratic country in such a humiliating way.

I guess this is what I found so disturbing: the fear of offending certain groups of people, and not others. Here in Canada it is open season on WASPS (White Anglo Saxon Protestants). You can insult them anytime, anyplace with impunity. Our minister, while visiting various congregational members in different public hospitals has been repeatedly asked to remove her clerical collar because it was offensive to patients of certain faiths, and here I am, hesitant to say which faith, in case I'm accused of racism. It is these subtle little infringements, since 2001, on individual freedoms that worry me.

There is a Muslim family living a few doors away from me. Because of all the stories I had read about Muslims being afraid of the backlash of the terroist attack, I was afraid that the parents might be afraid to send their little girl out "trick or treating", on Hallowe'en Eve a few weeks later. But little Hoda came tripping down the street just as in other years, all dressed up in her costume, cute as a button and happy and laughing and trusting, and when she came to my door, I wanted to pick her up and hug her, and shed a tear or two of joy and gratitude for being able to live in a country where we take freedom for granted, where it is just a normal way of life.

I hope, Edwina, that you understand my feelings, too-- why I reacted the way I did.
_________________
LYH

Lois Hashimoto · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 25 Location: Laval, QC,Canada

Oops!
When someone argues with me sincerely and rationally, as Edwina does, I am very quick to say to myself:
"Maybe I am wrong."
However, I don't think I am. What Wilder is trying to do is to show that the existing policy that you listed above is inadequate to protect your rights and freedoms. And it is scary because someone like you, whose intellect I admire very much, is stating as a factual truth that the message of the film is "It is OK to harm muslims, deport them, talk up the threat of Islam to our society and so on."
How do you know this, if you haven't seen it? Aren't even permitted to see it?
As I understand it, the film makes a firm stand against Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence. And no one, not even the Muslims, the vast majority of whom are are peace-loving gentle people,
could be against this. Who more than they have suffered from this violence?

In Britain, you have already experienced a horrific act of terroism by islamist extremists who quote the Koran to justify their inhumanity.

The House of Lords changed its mind only because it feared the violence that showing a short film would erupt. And violence would surely have resulted. You KNOW that.
Please think about that. In the end, it wasn't necessary to show the film to prove the point Greet Wilders was trying to make. He, a representative of a democratic country, was ignominiously booted out your country -- once known as the cradle of modern democracy -- as though he were a dangerous criminal.
This irrationality and the fact that good, kind, intelligent people don't see the incongruity is chilling.

Ok, I promise not to say anymore
_________________
LYH

zombiehellmonkey · Joined: 27 Sep 2008 Posts: 195

chunxueping · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 749 Location: Beijing, PRC

Isnt this the eternal problem the "Old World" has with the concept of "Freedom" regardless of whether relating to Muslims or whatever?

Europeans see freedom as something to be "granted" by the State which decides "What is good for us." it is not a birthright of the people but something that is earned if we behave ourselves.

The approach of the West towards Muslims is hardly enlighened. "We'll talk to the nice ones and bomb the bad ones and any that get in way are collateral damage in the War on Terror." (as if an abstract noun can be defeated)?

I dont agree that violence would have been the result of a private showing of a short film in the House of Lords, very few people would have seen it. It more likely the film is boring, bigoted and self-serving but there is no oportunity to explore and ridicule the racist message it might portray. The Dutchman is now a martyr and the State has shown itself to be foolish and repressive.

Edwina Lee · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 1282 Location: High Wycombe, UK

To show Geert Wilders' film is an absolute no no in the House of Lords. His views, his solutions are completely at odds with that of the west's fundamental political philosophy and strategy.

Visit the links below so we can have something concrete to talk about:-

[Watch the 1st min of this 10 min interview, then you ought to see what a problem this man is.]
Geert Wilders Speaks: Anti-Koran Film "Fitna" (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0jUuzdfqfc

( 2008-02-17 ) I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam, says Holland's Rising Political Star
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam

Newsfeeds

Latest Posts

	Dimsum Forum Index -> Community	All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3