Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Shouldn't we be fighting for Freedom in the UK instead of Iraq?


:yawn:

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

I noticed before how the British we're willing to limit freedom of speech and freedom of expression to appease the easily offended. But today it was taken a little bit too far in my eyes, when a parliament members of a fellow EU-country, and a economic and military ally, was banned without any legitimate reason to prevent some silly Powerpoint-ish documentary that noone actually cares about from being shown.

The reason given is that he (or his movie) is a threat to the public security and public harmony. However, this is not based on Wilders his personal behaviour, nor has he ever been convicted for hate speech or anything. Seeing the movie that he wanted to show, which is legally available in the UK and actually quite factual, that cannot be the reason either. So the problem doesn't actually lie with him, but somewhere else. Most likely it was to appease the easily offended, to avoid the protests that your lovely 5th column Lord threatened with. So it seems that when British Muslims threaten to get offended when someone, who they dislike, enters the same country (!) as them, the British government pisses their pants, and use every illegitimate action they can think of to appease the to be offended Muslims.

A little while later a spokesman for the British Home Office declared that it's being done in line with their policy to prevent all forms of extremism. And this members of the Dutch parliament clearly is an extremist, judging by the claims of the British Muslim community. This all just seems a little bit weird to me, as non-offended Muslims threatening and trying to force the hand of the government to take illegitimate actions to limit someone elses freedom, simply because they hate both dialogue and freedom of speech, seems a bit more extreme to me, then allowing a by the parliament invited person to show a readily available documentary.

It's all quite sad. Not nessesarily for Wilders, nor for the nearly offended Muslims, but for the little less Great Britain. Where people seem to have lost faith in the power of, and are slowly nibbling away their freedom. To satisfy the ever so intolerant amongst them.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

As a certain Dutch artist said before:

The easily offended, the overly sensitive, the insencere hypocrites who feel too offended to even hold a dialogue, are the ones that actually threaten society. They are the ones that should be arrested. Not the passioned people who open their mouths.

unless you're aiming for a society of fear and mediocrity.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

I'm pretty sure we banned him because he's dutch

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Define please.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Considering the grounds on which the decision rests, conflicting with the fundamental freedoms of the European Union.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

[quote=Alessio;3164903]

So the problem doesn't actually lie with him, but somewhere else. Most likely it was to appease the easily offended, to avoid the protests that your lovely 5th column Lord threatened with. So it seems that when British Muslims threaten to get offended when someone, who they dislike, enters the same country (!) as them, the British government pisses their pants, and use every illegitimate action they can think of to appease the to be offended Muslims.

QUOTE]


This is the point! The UK acted out of fear.... It seems that most people are getting scared to offend the minority groups who are nowadays easily offended. Its sad that they rather just ignore constitunional law then offend a group who shouldnt even be offended.
Freedom truly lost this battle.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Much as personally I disagree with the government on this it has to be said that it does no one on my side of the argument any good to start making crazy statements like this.

It is very annoying when you people clearly know nothing of British law and make assumptions on EU law with no evidence.

EDIT - also, while i am on this - could Holland please stop electing morons to parliament? It would help a lot.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Alessio confuses the freedom to speak with the freedom to spread hate and incite to violence.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

hell its easy to upset muslims, if i was a muslim i would be upset too.
but im not so im not upset :)

funny enough it means they are lesser ppl than the rest by default in their own opinion. they should sit down and be thankfull for the privilage of beeing in a safe country and shut the hell up or go back to the shithole they came from.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

The guy is a moron but he does not spread hate and incite to violence.



So the UK doesnt have a constitutional document , whatever.... different system.

Fact is the uk does acknowledge freedom of speech:
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.

About the guy being a moron, i agree. But this was just plain wrong.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

No. The UK does not.

The UK does 2 things.

I know that idiots would rather life was simple but proper governance is complicated.

The Uk
1) has adopted and accepts the right to freedom of expression within the law (by adopting article 10 of the ecrh by statute in the Human Rights Act 1998) - a qualified right
2) has many common law constrainsts, built up over centuries, which phohibit restrictions on freedom of expression

The UK does not accept free speech because in the legal system of England & Wales you would be mad to. Rather than making free speech a positive legal right we prohibit restrictions on feedom of speech where necessary.

fascinating stuff. these declarations and international treaties are worthless and non binding

again, riveting, but irrelevant

As irrelevant as quoting an irrelevant document is; there is still a point you miss here. No sane person has ever argued that the right to freedom of expresion is unqualified.

selectively quoting is the last refuge of an idiot

AGAIN - i am utterly fascinated but you have repeated the same utterly irrelevant point 3 times now. A friend of mine is the head of state of a very small nation, he is a friend and i like him a lot, but what laws he has are irrelevant when i think of what laws the uk should have

there are what? 192 members of the UN? if all of the 191 other members had a law and the UK was the only country that did not have that law; then when it came to thinking about whether or not the uk should have that law, the fact that 191 other countries had decided one way - would still be irrelevant.

that is your opinion. it is certainly not legal fact within the sovereign United Kingdom.

I am a supporter of freedom of expresion.

BUT

I will lose my patience.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

did you get upset yahwe?

UK got no balls anymore

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

ahh well, thats why i still go to school......


Anyway, it was wrong...and you know it!!

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

While i can't quote the exact cases/statute, there was almost certainly a legal basis for stopping Mr.Wilders from entering the country, given that people such as scientologists (!) have been refused entry to Britain. In terms of restricting freedom of speech this is one of those situations where people don't apply human rights law very well and absurd conclusions result.

Legal facts don't care about right or wrong.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

well you can always question the way laws are interpreted.... but still whether legal facts care about right or wrong or not, it STILL doesnt change the fact it was wrong and stupid...

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

"But if we ignore all your arguments for a moment, then it quickly becomes apparent that I am right, and you are wrong."

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Read this and see what i mean.

telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

in all fairness there are some dead dutch men.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

I did say there were people applying the law in an absurd way here. While our government is absurd, there is no doubt that the law is most likely on their side here. Given the choice I'd have let him have his trip to the house of lords but this time the law didn't see it that way.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

I never mentioned British law, because I know very little of that. I’m not an expert on European law either, but I can make a decent educated guess.

I was aiming at the free movement of services from the Treaty establishing the European Community (freedom of speech won’t help you much when trying to get across the border).

According to article 49 EC and the non-exhaustive (!) list of article 50 EC the fundamental freedoms mostly aim for economic activities. And more specific for this case: services that “are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.” Even tourists are covered under this definition. It is a shame that the treaty does not specifically mention European parliament members, but it should be kept it mind that it might not have been the intention to leave them out and the above mentioned definition is already being interpreted in a broader sense. I’m confident that if Wilders would argue that he went to the UK to promote his movie (which he did) it would be within the framework (?) of the European law, however, their doesn’t seem to be any (European) case law on this unprecedented situation yet.

Unsurprisingly, the arguments given by the British government, the basis on which Wilders was refused access to the country, were directly taken from this treaty. “The provisions of this chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” Article 46 and 55 EC.

I took the liberty of assuming that by chosing this wording they also chose to use the same interpretation as the European court (an interpretation which is shared with the free movement of persons). The case refers to the Schengen treaty, however, that treaty stays within the framework of the EC treaty and uses the same legal definitions. In case C-503/03 the European court mentioned the following:

Since his exclusively personal conduct or his (non-existing) criminal record doesn’t demonstrate the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (conditions which have to be interpreted in a strict matter), as he’s a calm debater from the Dutch parliament, who condmens violence on a regular basis and stays within the boundaries of the law, as mentioned in my second post, it is quite possible that the decision of the British government is conflicting with European law.

No, you do. Did you know that the Dutch prosecutors have already stated that his statements are not excessive and fall within the boundaries of the public debate? After researching his statements they decided not to prosecute him and afterwards case law has already been formed based on that decision. However, some civilians appealed to the decision, forcing the prosecutors to let a judge bend over the case regardless of their own interpretation. And I honestly do support the decision to let a judge give some clarity on the matter.

It seems however that idiots like you and from the Labour Party do not even care about justice or even truth. Legal and democratic principles are meaningless to you. And in your case I know why. It’s because you’re a hateful and prejudiced communist pig.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Wilders party would now get 25 seats in parliament. i need to get out of this country, as soon as possible.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

When will the next elections be? Next year in 2010?

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

yes that is possible. It's also possible that they acted within EU law.

I do think the government were very silly on this and I do consider it worrying

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

Fortunately Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them so that they can set things to right. Oh happy day!

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

why worry about politics?

i just wanna nuke and go

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

talking of dumb British laws noone has mentioned this yet (it passed)

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

I was trying to pretend it was all a horrible dream.

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5801891.ece

:salute:

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
 

errr...

that's just country bashing :o/ Not that I feel particularly threatened or damaged in anyway but what on earth made you think that was relevant???

Re: Dhimmitude in the UK