Ed Husain: Geert Wilders should not have been banned
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Geert Wilders should be allowed in because this is a country that has pioneered freedom of speech, from Milton and Locke through to Mill.
We have a strong, resilient society that is capable of tolerating debate without losing its temper or making personal attacks on those who are deemed offensive. When I debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali [the Dutch feminist and critic of Islam] last year, it was a civilised affair with powerful arguments on both sides and we need that sort of debate, if only to illustrate that Muslim communities are an asset to wider society.
Tolerant Muslims must be allowed to show we have the strength of our convictions and are allowed to handle criticism in a robust way, just as any other community would. We have to show people Muslims aren't just the most sensitive, the most aggressive, the most critical community; rather we're very prepared to take on these debates and win.
Mr Wilders has been invited over here by Lords and Ladies who have, to put it mildly, an anti-Muslim stance. They want to flare up divisions and show that Muslims are an aggressive bunch who won't tolerate free speech. By using Mr Wilders as a holy cow to demonstrate their point, they've achieved exactly what they set out to do. Lord Ahmed, a third-generation immigrant, might have various complexes but his message is all wrong. Drop the ban and start the debate. Bring it on!
Ed Husain wrote The Islamist, an account of his five years as aradical Islamist
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
As far as I can remember there was no big uproar about them being banned from the UK, and very few if any people seemed to be running around saying that free speech was under threat. Now that a white catholic Dutch politician is banned, so many people are upset, WHY ??? How come no one cared when the fanatical muslims were banned, if free speech should be allowed then shouldnt they be permitted to enter the UK and preach their beliefs that all infidels should die?
There are many cases where people have been sent to jail for denying the holocaust . . . when all they they were doing was "supposedly" excercising their right to free speech. I'm very sorry but if you believe that the UK ban on Geert Wilders is a restriction on freedom of speech and shouldnt have happened than you must also believe that radical fundamentalist islams can spread and preach their word of hate wherever and whenever they want and that holocaust deniers can do the same.
Personally, I believe what the UK government did what was entirely fair, given that they banned people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, they should of course also ban Geert Wilders.
As far as I know, there is no speech by Wilders, in English, outlining his beliefs, so I would have liked the opportunity to hear and decide, myself. The government action has denied us the opportunity.
The other "Bird" that has been killed by this ban; is that of "Starting a Debate" as Ed Hussain puts it; yes the debate would indeed have been won by intellectual Muslims who are fully conversant with Islam; sadly most of these Muslims who can extend the debate are neither welcome by the well financed extremist Muslims who will readily declare them as "Kaffirs" or those whose agenda involves vilifying Muslims.
The extremist Muslims only wish to keep their flock alienated so they can continue to exercise their politcial control over them; and on the other side of the coin those whose agenda is to vilify Muslims; fear that an open intellectual discourse that will only expose their own lies and mistruths about Muslims.
Ed Hussain is a mere featherweight fighting way above his weight under the encouragement of the mighty "Red Tpos".
Let us not beat about the bush, Wilders was refused entry into the UK because a cowardly Home Secretary was worried about the sort of Muslim demonstrations that followed the cartoons of the Prophet incident. Remember the placards some of these men carried calling for beheadings, hangings and other extreme violence to any who dared disagree with the extreme Muslim views,
It is so good to hear the views of a moderate Muslim who seem to value freedom of speech more than members of this government and the official opposition.
Gert Wilders is a true hero to all who know the true face os islam and muslim hypocrisy. His film simply shows images of muslims being muslims intercut with passages from the koran. Offensive? Yes, that muslim scum behaviour and that vile filthy book is very offensive, as are so many traitor terrorist-supporting scumbag muslims in the UK - they are the enemy within and many should perhaps be interned. Many more should be prosecuted for the hate and violence inciting speeches they make every day of the week. Islam is offensive and a sick and filthy pig religion - and it is my right to say so. Muslims worship a 7th century murdering paedophile. Sad or what.
Gert Wildres was banned because of the probably muslim reaction teo THE TRUTH OF HIS FILM WHICH MUSLIMS WANT TO KEEP HIDDEN. He was not banned for inciting hatred or violence - and he is doing neither. As he has said, he is against the values of islam and muslims who want the islamification of europe to continue. Sadly the coward politicians in charge lick muslim asss yet again - but this will come back to haunt them when those muslim bombs kill their children.
If you are offended by this, then please bear in mind that your comment has offended me.
The extremist clerics banne by the government were banned because they encourage violent actions amoung their followers, Wilders does not.
No one has ever been isent to jail in the UK for denyiong the holocaust, to my knowledge at least, perhaps you know better and can provide a citation? If you're talking about someone being jailed in another country, then it is completely irrelevant to a discussion of freedom of speach in the UK, isn't it?
In a civilised society we should be able to debate different viewpoints.
Islam by contrast is in a fossilised and stagnant state and is thus becoming increasingly strained and irrelevant.
The doors have to be kicked down, the right to criticise and ridicule asserted and then the air and light that historians, archeologists, scientists, sociologists, psychologist, atheists, other faiths can bring will flood in.
No doubt there will be a short-term price to pay for this, but it has to be worth it.
Anyone who disagrees with Ed's comments ought really to at the very least read the book to try to glean some idea of the radical thoughts of those who promote the more extreme - Islamist as opposed to Islam - goings on.
The middle part of The Islamist seem more akin to radical student politics than anything else.
James