Watching this is like watching a publicly rotting corpse. And the media are vultures.
They depict Wilders as a bigot, when in fact he is nothing of the kind. The media are the bigots -- it is the media and the elites who glorify the real bigots in the UK (Dr Ijaz Mian, Ibrahim Moussawi etc).
Video here (file photo: House of Lords)
Part I: (much thanks to eretz for helping me grab the Wilders debate)
Part II:
Baroness Cox: "I don't agree with everything that Geert Wilders has to say, but I believe he has the right to say it in a democracy."
Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the phrase, which is often mis-attributed to
Voltaire,
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it," as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs
MP3 Audio:
| House of Lords Debate on Geert Wilders being Banned from UK | 02-12-09 | 11:22 | 5.20MB |
A Private Notice Question - an urgent question to the Government - was asked in the Lords Chamber on 12 February on the Government's justification for denying Dutch MP, Mr Geert Wilders, entry into the UK.
- Lords Hansard: Geert Wilders
- Video and Audio: Geert Wilders
- Companion to the House of Lords: Private Notice Questions
Transcript of the debate:
Asked By Lord Taverne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government
what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United
Kingdom.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which
I have given private notice.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, under
European law, a member state of the European economic area may refuse entry to a
national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy,
public security or public health.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am aware that
Mr Wilders holds views highly offensive to the Muslim community, but freedom of
speech issues often raise awkward
12 Feb 2009 : Column
1233
questions. Indeed, this ban has united in opposition the noble Lord,
Lord Pearson, the Dutch Government—unusual allies—and also a section of the
Muslim community which cares about freedom of expression. Does the Home Office
agree that causing offence, even deep offence, to particular religious groups is
no reason for compromising on the principle of freedom of expression? Why else
did we repeal the laws on blasphemy? Since this is a ban on an EU citizen and
Member of Parliament who has been convicted of no offence, and who has been
invited to a private showing of a film in this House—not a rally in Trafalgar
Square—does it not set a deeply disturbing precedent for the vital question of
freedom of expression?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Government
and I are great believers in freedom of expression. Indeed, I am constantly
getting into trouble because I am too free with my expressions at times. But the
decision was not based purely on the film “Fitna”, but also on a range of
factors, including prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and
discrimination, and other statements. The Home Secretary has to make a decision,
as was said, on anyone coming in if they are a threat to public policy or public
security in particular. We are constantly looking at this and are very robust
about it with all sorts of extremists, from whichever corner they come. I
regularly, across my desk, have to give advice to the Home Secretary about
stopping people coming into this country, because I do not think it is
appropriate that they should be here. I think it is good that we are being
robust about this, and absolutely appropriate that the Home Secretary should
have made this decision.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there seems to be a
bit of a lottery as to who is admitted and who is not. Are there any criteria by
which the Home Secretary works, even if advised by the noble Lord, to justify
who is refused admittance and who is not?
Lord West of Spithead: My
Lords, there is effectively a list of things the Home Secretary will check
through when she is making a decision about whether someone should be allowed
into this country. Of course, as the House will well know, quite often we will
say that someone should not come into this country, but they then appeal and,
through our judicial system, it is decided that they should be allowed to do so.
One of the great strengths and joys of this country is that there is a very
robust approach to these things. Sometimes, it surprises many of us that that
person is allowed to come in and continue to say things—that seems very strange,
whatever persuasion they come from. There is a list, and it is checked through.
As I said, the Home Secretary thought long and hard about this. The decision was
based on a whole raft of things, not just on this film. I believe that it was
the correct decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take this
opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for asking this Question. I
suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is
innocent until he is proved guilty. I only have one
12 Feb 2009 :
Column 1234
question, because I know that we do not want to spend long on
this. Does the noble Lord think that this situation would have occurred if Mr
Wilders had said, “Ban the Bible”? If it would not have occurred, why not?
Surely, the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film
in this country is not caused by the film, which merely attempts to show how the
violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts, but by the
jihadist, the violent Islamist. In doing what the Government have done, surely
they are therefore guilty of appeasement.
Lord West of Spithead: My
Lords, I certainly do not think that we are guilty of appeasement in any way
whatever. I do not want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case
about what if he had talked about this or that. I am afraid that I am rather
constrained about exactly what I can say about him. He is under prosecution in
the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination. Clearly, anything that I say
in this House could become involved in that, and I would not wish that to
happen. It would be wrong if that was the case. Also, he can appeal against the
Home Secretary’s decision, and anything that I say could be used
there.
As I said, we are very robust across the board. We take no sides
on this. We treat people whom we believe are a threat to the security and safety
of this nation in exactly the same way, from whatever cloth they come; that is
extremely important. I believe that this was the right decision.
Lord
Trimble: My Lords, the Minister has talked about incitement, and reference has
been made to the possibility of counterprotests. These are public order matters.
The criterion that the Minister should be operating under is public security,
which is a different thing.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, again, I
really cannot go too far down this route. These things will be looked at in the
Court of Appeal and in the court of another nation. I do not wish to go down
this route; I think that it would be wrong for me to do so.
Lord Peston:
My Lords, will the Minister comment on one matter, which might enable us to make
up our minds? Who brought this matter to the attention of the Home Secretary?
Since this man is an EU citizen, he does not have to apply specially to come to
our country. How did this become a matter of public policy?
Lord West of
Spithead: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to
that question, because I am not quite sure how it came to the attention of the
Home Secretary. I was first aware of this about a week ago. I do not know the
answer. Perhaps I can write to my noble friend when I can discover the
answer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
Baroness Falkner of
Margravine: My Lords—
12 Feb 2009 : Column 1235
