Dutch politician banned from coming into the UK

[Daniel]

Not sure if anyone outside of the UK has seen this but to me this is big news. While I certainly don't agree with this guys calls for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands I simply don't see how the UK can stop an elected official from another country in the EU to come in, especially when he was invited my a member of the house of Lords and they let him in just over a month ago :mark:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7885918.stm

[BDunnell]

I agree. I abhor his views but he shouldn't be prevented from coming here on that basis.

I agree. I abhor his views but he shouldn't be prevented from coming here on that basis.

There are two things I cannot stand.

Intolerant people......and the Dutch.

[Hondo]

This has been in the British press since Monday or Tuesday, or maybe I saw it last week.
I know everybody laughs at fousto about his Islamic Europia theories, but he may be more right than he knows.

I thought about doing a thread on it but you guys pretty much ignore any negative threads on European doings. You don't have any Bush threads to whoop and holler about anymore and Israel and Hamas are giving it a breather so the "evil Jews" threads are cooling off. And, since nobody wants to hear or accept the truth about Obama yet, well...it makes for a slow day.

Personally, I go through most of the Brit papers online almost everyday. I never see any glowing stories about the wonderful healthcare or educational system. In fact, I usually see quite the opposite.

I see you're getting ready to buy a bunch of new trains from Japan. Why would you need bigger trains when fewer people have to go to work?

[Daniel]

This has been in the British press since Monday or Tuesday, or maybe I saw it last week.
I know everybody laughs at fousto about his Islamic Europia theories, but he may be more right than he knows.

I thought about doing a thread on it but you guys pretty much ignore any negative threads on European doings. You don't have any Bush threads to whoop and holler about anymore and Israel and Hamas are giving it a breather so the "evil Jews" threads are cooling off. And, since nobody wants to hear or accept the truth about Obama yet, well...it makes for a slow day.

Personally, I go through most of the Brit papers online almost everyday. I never see any glowing stories about the wonderful healthcare or educational system. In fact, I usually see quite the opposite.

Take the newspapers with a bag of salt, a lot of them like to say that Britain is falling apart at the seams when it's not.

Fousto's stupid Islamic europe thing is just that.... stupid :) This issue isn't about protecting Islam, in fact they did the same thing to a Muslim cleric in the past.

We don't ignore threads about the negative parts of Europe it's just that a lot of the threads about the negative parts of europe merely highlight non-issues OR highlight things that everyone agrees with. People here don't seem to be as tribal and don't jump to the defence of Europe merely because they're european.

[Hondo]

You're right. This isn't about protecting Islam, it's about protecting you from Islam.

To be fair, Islam is only the vehicle being used by the Jihadists. If they could could recruit followers willing to sacrifice themselves for Mickey Mouse or a bar of soap just as easily, they'd use that. The top thugs could give a rat's a@@ about Islam. They are in it for the power and money. What could be finer than the entire world under Sharia Law, with them as the judges? In a silly sort of way it reminds me of the old 007 movies where huge criminal organizations always had plans to take over the world. Does it make sense? No. Does that stop them ? No. Why not? Because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Very soon they will own Somalia.

The Jihadists have stated over and over again their goal of converting the world to Islam. A world ruled by Sharia Law. People can embrace Islam or be killed. Got that? Killed. They don't want a homeland, they don't want to live as equals, they are not willing to accept your values or culture. Sharia Law is the only thing acceptable. No compromise, no other solution or appeasement. They have and are willing to use sucidal little believers to work towards that goal. They gain more all the time.

Barring the Dutchman from Britain wasn't about protecting Islam, it was about protecting Britain from Islam. Britain and Europe in general go to great pains not to annoy their Islamic populations nowadays. Publishers afraid to print books or cartoons....they may riot. Afraid to screen movies...they may riot. They scared Spain off with one bomb in a train station. Don't do this, don't do that you'll upset the Islamic population. You are already afraid of these people and they know it. They laugh at you. They fart and you're on your knees wanting to know what you've done to offend them. They have openly called for your death and still you seek appeasement. I'm not indicting Islam, I'm indicting the Jihadists, although an honest man would have to admit you really don't know which you're dealing with until it's too late. How many British citizens and immigrants have been picked up or traced to Jihadist training camps? You've already had a taste of their work, more is coming, but you still try not to offend them. What are you offending, really? They immigrated to Britain. It is up to them to accept British culture. Islam is not the religion of Britain and quite fairly, they are free to practice their religion as far as it goes without conflicting with their new, adopted culture. If they want Sharia law, they could have stayed where they were or immigrated to an Islamic country.

There's not a doubt in my mind that if that 4th aircraft on 911 had been full of modern Europeans, it would have hit it's planned target. Nobody on board would have tried to stop it.

Make no mistake about it, keeping the Dutchman out was about not upsetting the Nation of Islam in Britain and avoiding trouble. The Dutchman is no threat to Islam.

[Daniel]

The Jihadists have stated over and over again their goal of converting the world to Islam.

Hey..... Mormons have come to my door in the past trying to tell me how great their religion is and I've happily told them to **** off :)

[donKey jote]

They scared Spain off with one bomb in a train station.
Fiero I'll bite...
that has become a bit of a cliché for this type of rants and is a load of caca de toro. If you really think that way then you are absolutely clueless about Spain :)

:dozey:

[Hondo]

Hey..... Mormons have come to my door in the past trying to tell me how great their religion is and I've happily told them to **** off :)


The Mormons haven't threatened to kill you. I politely tell them "No thank you" and they leave. In the summer time I'll politely tell them "No thank you" and then invite them in for a break from the heat and a tall glass of ice water or lemonade. They always been grateful for the break and refreshment and leave when done. I have no problems with others trying to share their religion. It works for them and they seek to share the joy and peace of mind it gives them.

I have problems with people saying convert or die. I take them at their word.

[Hondo]

Fiero I'll bite...
that has become a bit of a cliché for this type of rants and is a load of caca de toro. If you really think that way then you are absolutely clueless about Spain :)

:dozey: I'll bite back...educate me. Was that a coincidence?

[donKey jote]

Fiero, do you know who Ansar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmRxf01AdHE&feature=related) is?
Spain's Bush-wannabee if you like... clearly shares your views too.
Thought he could lie to the people and get away with it.
No, it was no coincidence that he got chucked out, he deserved it. Good riddance !

It had nothing to do about being scared of a bomb though. Spain is more than used to bombs.
It's "you guys" who appear to live scared and paranoid :p :

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Hondo]

Ok, I watched the video. Did he get chucked out because of the bomb or not?

What view did he share? The one about the Jihadists coming after the world? That's not paranoid, that's what they said their goals were. I have no reason to doubt them.

[Hondo]

Since this Islam-Jihadist thing is only a paranoid fantasy, let's do away with all the annoying security at airports now. no more metal detectors, sniffer dogs, no ID required.

I'm all for it. I'd vote to do away with it.

[rah]

Since this Islam-Jihadist thing is only a paranoid fantasy, let's do away with all the annoying security at airports now. no more metal detectors, sniffer dogs, no ID required.

I'm all for it. I'd vote to do away with it.

While no one is doubting that the veracity of Islam Jihad, maybe being chronically scared of it is not the answer. Airport security is for a very different reason, it is so security staff in airports do not have to pay for their own nail files.

[donKey jote]

He got chucked because Spain is a democracy.
The origin of your spin is based on the supposition that he would have won the election if Madrid hadn't been bombed...
1. Most pre-election polls (not all) indicated a slight majority for Ansar, but we all know what counts are votes, not polls.
2. Many more people voted than in previous elections (hey, bit like Bush vs Bama ;) )
3. The majority voted for Zapatero, basta.

I concede that the bomb could have been a factor for 2, but not because people were scared of more bombs or wanted to "appease the muzzies".
People were already pretty fed up with Aznar and his crowd in the first place both on domestic and external affairs.
The straw that broke the donkey's back, so to say, was their performance in the days that followed the bomb. In times of crisis people look to their Head of State or Government for strength and leadership. Bush sat in shock and awe in front of a bunch of schoolkids. Anzar and co insisted the bombing had ETA links (the usual suspects in Spain: basque terrorists), even when everyone else outside Spain knew otherwise. I had more information here in Germany (via the BBC news, heck even Norwegian sites), than my family in Madrid had - I was phoning them with the latest updates. It was his last lie, which he even tried to keep alive as long as possible to excuse how he had been "robbed" in the elections. Four years later, after his party lost the next elections (without bombs this time), the ETA-alQaeda conspiracy tactics seem to have been finally dropped.


So short answer to because of the bomb or not?
Maybe (a bit like a butterfly flaps it's wings and a couple of chits change at a voting station in Florida).
If so, then not because of being scared, but because his attitude (not listening to the Spanish people, treating them like donkeys) and lies got more people off their arses and into the booths to vote.
A triumph of democracy.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[donKey jote]

it is so security staff in airports do not have to pay for their own nail files.
or bottles of water :dozey:

[Hondo]

Well that's certainly a more lucid explanation than the first one. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it better.

[BDunnell]

This has been in the British press since Monday or Tuesday, or maybe I saw it last week.
I know everybody laughs at fousto about his Islamic Europia theories, but he may be more right than he knows.

I thought about doing a thread on it but you guys pretty much ignore any negative threads on European doings. You don't have any Bush threads to whoop and holler about anymore and Israel and Hamas are giving it a breather so the "evil Jews" threads are cooling off. And, since nobody wants to hear or accept the truth about Obama yet, well...it makes for a slow day.

Personally, I go through most of the Brit papers online almost everyday. I never see any glowing stories about the wonderful healthcare or educational system. In fact, I usually see quite the opposite.

I see you're getting ready to buy a bunch of new trains from Japan. Why would you need bigger trains when fewer people have to go to work?

Fiero, I think you are, very sadly, undergoing a descent into paranoia. Again, your generalisations ill become you. You assume that all of us Europeans joined in every Bush-bashing or Israel-hating thread without a thought, while somehow ignoring the problems we have at home. This is, quite simply, nonsense, as typified by your last comment there about trains.

[BDunnell]

Since this Islam-Jihadist thing is only a paranoid fantasy, let's do away with all the annoying security at airports now. no more metal detectors, sniffer dogs, no ID required.

I'm all for it. I'd vote to do away with it.

I quite agree, because terrorists will always get through in some way or another, it it doesn't do to become too bothered about it, for the measures that seek to prevent it altogether are by definition unduly draconian.

But none of this means that we are about to surrender to becoming an Islamic state, which is simply fanciful.

[Hondo]

That's ok, I think the lot of you are fools for not seeing it.

[BDunnell]

That's ok, I think the lot of you are fools for not seeing it.

And I seriously think you are a far, far worse fool for even thinking it might happen. I hate to say this because I used to respect your opinions, but no longer.

[donKey jote]

Well that's certainly a more lucid explanation than the first one. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it better.
Thanks, my pleasure :)

One last go at being lucid (sorry to the rest for hijacking the thread):

2000 Elections (no bombs)
PP 10.321.178
PSOE 7.918.752
Participation: 68% of 33Mill

2004 Elections March 14th (Islamic Fundi terrorist bomb March 11th)
PP 9.763.144
PSOE 11.026.163
Participation: 76% of 35Mill
The PP (Aznar's party) lost about 500.000 votes, whereas PSOE (Zapatero) gained 3 Million (!). That's how many people were outraged at Aznar.

They currently stand at:
2008 Elections March 9th (Basque Fundi terrorist assasination on March 7th)
PP 10.277.809
PSOE 11.288.698
74% of 35Mill

Good night... don't forget to check under your bed ;) :p :

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Freedom of speech versus the abuse of freedom of speech.

Regardless of whether or not the Dutch MP should have been allowed to come here, he has got the publicity he wanted.

Geert Wilders says this is a sad day for free speech............................................ ..yet he wants to ban the Koran............................

[Dave B]

The irony is, as with all "bans", that almost nobody would have heard of Wilders' grubby little film if he'd been allowed in. Now it's one of YouTube's most viewed clips :s

[BDunnell]

The irony is, as with all "bans", that almost nobody would have heard of Wilders' grubby little film if he'd been allowed in. Now it's one of YouTube's most viewed clips :s

Rubbish. Those of us with a brain would all have watched it anyway, given that we should apparently be so frightened of the UK becoming a Muslim state...

[Daniel]

Rubbish. Those of us with a brain would all have watched it anyway, given that we should apparently be so frightened of the UK becoming a Muslim state...
That sounds like Muslim talk to me.......

Burn him! He's a wit.... erm I mean Muslim!

[Hondo]

Even funnier, he was invited by members of the English government.

[BDunnell]

Even funnier, he was invited by members of the English government.

Totally wrong. He was invited by a (rather bonkers) member of the British Parliament. The difference is significant, although it makes no difference to the wrong and counter-productive nature of the decision to ban him.

[BDunnell]

By the way, I was amused by this comment on the BBC News website: 'Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said by turning away Geert Wilders, ministers had made a "populist twit and bigot" world famous.' Rather as his employment on the This Week programme has done with Michael Portillo...

[Hondo]

The British Parliament isn't part of the British government? My mistake, sorry. For some reason I thought it was.

[Daniel]

Even funnier, he was invited by members of the English government.

I mentioned this in the first post of this thread ;)

[Dave B]

Even funnier, he was invited by members of the English government.
He was invited by a rather, shall we say "eccentric" member of UKIP who seems to believe that Muslims lurk behind every lamp post ready to slaughter anybody who doesn't convert to Islam.

He's crazy; Wilders is crazy. Ignore them and they'll go away.

[BDunnell]

He was invited by a rather, shall we say "eccentric" member of UKIP who seems to believe that Muslims lurk behind every lamp post ready to slaughter anybody who doesn't convert to Islam.

Ah, the wonderful Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who defected to UKIP and memorably said at the time that he wanted to free the UK from the tentacles of what he described as 'the corrupt European octopus in Brussels', leading Armando Iannucci to remark that this must be 'a mixture of red tape and black ink'.

[chuck34]

2. Many more people voted than in previous elections (hey, bit like Bush vs Bama ;) )

Sorry to hijack the thread, but when exactly did the Bush vs Bama election take place????

[Hondo]

Aw c'mon chuck. We know what he meant. Give the donKey a break.

[Captain VXR]

If we had let him in, maybe some AlQaeda bloke would have set a bomb off here, and we do not want racists (Geert) coming into this country :)

[Hondo]

I don't believe Islam qualifies as a race so racism shouldn't enter to it. I do, although, understand you not wanting additional racists in the country being that you're overstocked already.

[donKey jote]

By the way, I was amused by this comment on the BBC News website: 'Former Conservative cabinet minister Michael Portillo said by turning away Geert Wilders, ministers had made a "populist twit and bigot" world famous.' Rather as his employment on the This Week programme has done with Michael Portillo...
:up: :laugh:
It's somehow hard to believe that Mr Portilow owes the anglicised pronunciation of his name to his father having to flee the Spanish Fascist Revolution (http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk/articles/art_kandc/kc18oct01.htm).


Aw c'mon chuck. We know what he meant. Give the donKey a break.
Thanks Fiero. The only thing is... I don't even know what I meant anymore. So much for my lucidity :dozey: :laugh:
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well this is one of those times I am going to sit on the fence. I think there is a kernal of truth in what Fiero says in that the Islamic lobby in the UK is always in the forefront of the minds of sensitive politicians. Lets face it, they are a voting block important to the governing Labour Party ( I cant see them voting for the Conservatives when they have people like Galloway around supporting them) .

Do I think this Dutch politician to be a threat to anyone? Just to those who don't want to hear free speech. What we are seeing is censorship.

That said, I don't see the Islamic population in the UK getting too bent out of shape about this guy either. If they did, wouldn't that say VOLUMES about what Fiero is saying?

Hey, the UK made a mistake here. No criminal record? Then there is no valid reason to keep him out.

[Hondo]

Take it to the bank Mark. The only reason they kept him out was to avoid trouble with their local Islamic population. They are scared of them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think they should read Mark Steyn's take on things "America alone" where he talks of what you have talked of.

I don't think the future is as bleak as you paint it, but I do think people in Europe have been accomodating the wishes of the Islamic minorities for so long that they don't see the creeping influence of how it is changing their pereceptions of free speech and debate when it comes to Islamic topics.

[Hondo]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Jihadists can take Europe, but that won't stop them from trying and being a pain in the a$$ until somebody finally wakes up and sees the only way to deal with their avowed goal is to submit or kill them first.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well if the Islamic/Moroccan immigrants rioting on the streets of Paris didn't wake someone up a few years back, or the Pakistani communities home grown terrorists in the UK planning their "missions" isn't a wake up call, I hope like hell they hear one soon.

I am not fearful of the Islamic community that attempts to understand their neighbours and accept them, but even in Canada, there was a push from that community to have their own system of Sharia be respected by the Canadian courts and one of the left wing nutjob members of Provincial Parliament had a position paper in support of it. Luckily saner heads prevailed and an honour killing last year and one later this year of Pakistani women by their families for going against Islamic conventions has done much to scare the hell out of Canadians and anger them as well towards any suggestion of Sharia. I hope people in the UK and the rest of Europe wake up and not tolerate intimidation.

That Dutch politician wouldn't have been asked any questions on any of this for entry into Canada. The fact the UK banned him leads me to believe Fiero more and more you have a point.

[Daniel]

Well if the Islamic/Moroccan immigrants rioting on the streets of Paris didn't wake someone up a few years back, or the Pakistani communities home grown terrorists in the UK planning their "missions" isn't a wake up call, I hope like hell they hear one soon.

I am not fearful of the Islamic community that attempts to understand their neighbours and accept them, but even in Canada, there was a push from that community to have their own system of Sharia be respected by the Canadian courts and one of the left wing nutjob members of Provincial Parliament had a position paper in support of it. Luckily saner heads prevailed and an honour killing last year and one later this year of Pakistani women by their families for going against Islamic conventions has done much to scare the hell out of Canadians and anger them as well towards any suggestion of Sharia. I hope people in the UK and the rest of Europe wake up and not tolerate intimidation.

That Dutch politician wouldn't have been asked any questions on any of this for entry into Canada. The fact the UK banned him leads me to believe Fiero more and more you have a point.

The thing is there is no intimidation. There were a few bombs set off in London back in 2005 (on my birthday actually) and that's about it. I'm going to go all American and say sure there might be a few pussies who are worried, but largely people aren't intimidated and secondly there are very few Muslims who actually support this line and a lot of prominent Muslims have come out time and time again in condemnation of these sorts of acts and have asked their community to look out for younger people who might be at risk of being radicalised and make an effort to ensure this doesn't happen again as it obviously paints their religion in a bad light.

Just remember that they did the very same thing to a Muslim cleric not that long ago so it's not about pandering to the Islamic community, it's some sort of pisspoor attempt at protecting the community by banning people who publicly state views with differ radically from the norm from coming in. Thing is I have no doubt that there are thousands of people coming in every year who hold views which are extreme in both ways. You only have to look at Stormfront to see what is lurking at the other extreme to Islamic extremists ----> http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=571427 and to me that is just as worrying.

Either way this is censorship and is just wrong in a free society like ours.

[Dave B]

The thing is there is no intimidation. There were a few bombs set off in London back in 2005 (on my birthday actually) and that's about it. I'm going to go all American and say sure there might be a few pussies who are worried, but largely people aren't intimidated and secondly there are very few Muslims who actually support this line and a lot of prominent Muslims have come out time and time again in condemnation of these sorts of acts and have asked their community to look out for younger people who might be at risk of being radicalised and make an effort to ensure this doesn't happen again as it obviously paints their religion in a bad light.
All very true :up:

After a decade or so of IRA bombs and threats, the UK public doesn't exactly get that bothered about terrorism. The attitude is "There's a bomb on the Picadilly Line? Oh well, I can get the Circle Line and change at Green Park..." (Dara O'Briain et al).

We know that 99.9999999% of Muslims aren't terrorists in any sense, and the chances of being affected by the tiny fraction who do harbour bad intentions are so small that they're not worth worrying about in your day-to-day life.

[donKey jote]

precisely :up:

[donKey jote]

That Dutch politician wouldn't have been asked any questions on any of this for entry into Canada. The fact the UK banned him leads me to believe Fiero more and more you have a point.
Canada may be the land of the free, but south of your border people like Cat Stevens were turned back based on his name and religion, and everybody has to answer a list of stupid questions (were you ever a nazi and the like :laugh: ) before being allowed entry.

[Easy Drifter]

There are two groups of people in Canada that by and large seem to have no sense of humour (and often no common sense) and they are Customs and Immigration Officers and Ministry of Natural Resourses Officers.
Even most cops do have a sense of humour as long as you are not a smart
-ss.

[markabilly]

I thought the point of free speech was not whether you were right or wrong, but being able to say it, regardless of whether anyone else thinks you are right or wrong, esp. in the area of political speech...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Canada may be the land of the free, but south of your border people like Cat Stevens were turned back based on his name and religion, and everybody has to answer a list of stupid questions (were you ever a nazi and the like :laugh: ) before being allowed entry.

Hey, the Yanks spent some years being paranoid after 9/11. The "No-Fly" list was a bit of farce really and the Americans do get a little carried away with it. That is wrong too, for I remember them baring Canadian writer Farley Mowat from the US years ago because he made a joke about taking his hunting rifle and knocking down some B-52's who were based out of Goose Bay Labrador at the time (this was in the 70's?)for training. Farley, being a rather leftwing and often humourous individual is never taken THAT seriously up here but some wingnut in the US State Dept. saw his remarks in a newspaper and had him banned from the US. Farley milked it for a number of columns and a book.

My point is no country that purports to be free should be banning ANYONE based on what they SAY. What people should do though is if they disagree with this speaker coming in is to make sure they say something in protest or in the media to make sure the other side is heard. If the guy is a loon, people will make up their own minds.

This banning in the UK is just disturbing though. I thought Britain was better than that and while I don't think you guys are intimidated by terrorists or the Islamic community then you should have a rational reason for this. I think it is a government overreaction by the politically correct police in the government. THEY are the ones scared of an Islamic backlash. I would never think that the people who rode out the Blitz and the IRA bombings would be intimidated easily but it is clear to me some bureaucratic wonk in the employ of the current government doesn't want to take a hit in the polls. This is DISGUSTING to my mind and if it happened in Canada the fur would be flying for DAYS.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I thought the point of free speech was not whether you were right or wrong, but being able to say it, regardless of whether anyone else thinks you are right or wrong, esp. in the area of political speech...


So you were 100% in favour of letting the current President of Iran go to a debate at Columbia a year or so ago? I would think so but a surprising number for Americans who are all for free speech still thought this guy should have never been allowed off the plane. Of course, with New York being the home of the UN, THAT wasn't going to happen.....

[markabilly]

So you were 100% in favour of letting the current President of Iran go to a debate at Columbia a year or so ago? I would think so but a surprising number for Americans who are all for free speech still thought this guy should have never been allowed off the plane. Of course, with New York being the home of the UN, THAT wasn't going to happen.....
For sure, yes, I would love him to be in my backyard....I believe every murderer has free speech rights, right up until he is executed

[Mark in Oshawa]

The thing is there is no intimidation. There were a few bombs set off in London back in 2005 (on my birthday actually) and that's about it. I'm going to go all American and say sure there might be a few pussies who are worried, but largely people aren't intimidated and secondly there are very few Muslims who actually support this line and a lot of prominent Muslims have come out time and time again in condemnation of these sorts of acts and have asked their community to look out for younger people who might be at risk of being radicalised and make an effort to ensure this doesn't happen again as it obviously paints their religion in a bad light.

Just remember that they did the very same thing to a Muslim cleric not that long ago so it's not about pandering to the Islamic community, it's some sort of pisspoor attempt at protecting the community by banning people who publicly state views with differ radically from the norm from coming in. Thing is I have no doubt that there are thousands of people coming in every year who hold views which are extreme in both ways. You only have to look at Stormfront to see what is lurking at the other extreme to Islamic extremists ----> http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=571427 and to me that is just as worrying.

Either way this is censorship and is just wrong in a free society like ours.

I just went to the link you have and feel like I need a bath. OF course, banning this Dutch politician just pours gas on the fire for these louts who have quotes of Hitler on their posts.

It is amazing to me how people who have access to full access to the world at large through the internet in a nation such as the UK , USA, Canada or wherever can talk about how the world is screwed up in this manner. Whether it be Islamic extermists or neo-Nazi's on Stormfront I have little time at all for any of their crap.

I may be labelled as a right winger at times on here but I understand 100% the concept of free speech and freedom of expression; and I am still alarmed that the government tries to filter these guys at customs. Let them in, and let them speak. Bans give them strength, as the posts I read on Stormfront indicate. Now I feel like I need a shower....god what filth!

[steve_spackman]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Jihadists can take Europe, but that won't stop them from trying and being a pain in the a$$ until somebody finally wakes up and sees the only way to deal with their avowed goal is to submit or kill them first.

thats where the BNP comes in...

[steve_spackman]

Hey, the Yanks spent some years being paranoid after 9/11. The "No-Fly" list was a bit of farce really and the Americans do get a little carried away with it. That is wrong too, for I remember them baring Canadian writer Farley Mowat from the US years ago because he made a joke about taking his hunting rifle and knocking down some B-52's who were based out of Goose Bay Labrador at the time (this was in the 70's?)for training. Farley, being a rather leftwing and often humourous individual is never taken THAT seriously up here but some wingnut in the US State Dept. saw his remarks in a newspaper and had him banned from the US. Farley milked it for a number of columns and a book.

My point is no country that purports to be free should be banning ANYONE based on what they SAY. What people should do though is if they disagree with this speaker coming in is to make sure they say something in protest or in the media to make sure the other side is heard. If the guy is a loon, people will make up their own minds.

This banning in the UK is just disturbing though. I thought Britain was better than that and while I don't think you guys are intimidated by terrorists or the Islamic community then you should have a rational reason for this. I think it is a government overreaction by the politically correct police in the government. THEY are the ones scared of an Islamic backlash. I would never think that the people who rode out the Blitz and the IRA bombings would be intimidated easily but it is clear to me some bureaucratic wonk in the employ of the current government doesn't want to take a hit in the polls. This is DISGUSTING to my mind and if it happened in Canada the fur would be flying for DAYS.

Very well put Mark

[BDunnell]

I think there is a kernal of truth in what Fiero says in that the Islamic lobby in the UK is always in the forefront of the minds of sensitive politicians. Lets face it, they are a voting block important to the governing Labour Party

I think 'they' are a constituency that's viewed as important by all parties now, to be honest.

[BDunnell]

Take it to the bank Mark. The only reason they kept him out was to avoid trouble with their local Islamic population. They are scared of them.

And on what grounds do you say this? I don't think anyone reasonable in the UK is frightened of any group in particular, despite the scare-mongering of the right-wing press, Americans who believe that just because we haven't all been gripped by collective paranoia we must be somehow 'soft on terrorism', et al.

[BDunnell]

The thing is there is no intimidation. There were a few bombs set off in London back in 2005 (on my birthday actually) and that's about it. I'm going to go all American and say sure there might be a few pussies who are worried, but largely people aren't intimidated and secondly there are very few Muslims who actually support this line and a lot of prominent Muslims have come out time and time again in condemnation of these sorts of acts and have asked their community to look out for younger people who might be at risk of being radicalised and make an effort to ensure this doesn't happen again as it obviously paints their religion in a bad light.

Just remember that they did the very same thing to a Muslim cleric not that long ago so it's not about pandering to the Islamic community, it's some sort of pisspoor attempt at protecting the community by banning people who publicly state views with differ radically from the norm from coming in. Thing is I have no doubt that there are thousands of people coming in every year who hold views which are extreme in both ways. You only have to look at Stormfront to see what is lurking at the other extreme to Islamic extremists ----> http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=571427 and to me that is just as worrying.

Either way this is censorship and is just wrong in a free society like ours.

Very good post, Daniel. :up:

[BDunnell]

After a decade or so of IRA bombs and threats, the UK public doesn't exactly get that bothered about terrorism. The attitude is "There's a bomb on the Picadilly Line? Oh well, I can get the Circle Line and change at Green Park..." (Dara O'Briain et al).

We know that 99.9999999% of Muslims aren't terrorists in any sense, and the chances of being affected by the tiny fraction who do harbour bad intentions are so small that they're not worth worrying about in your day-to-day life.

Exactly.

It is interesting, I think, that those on the right are always the first when civilians in whichever country we and our allies happen to be bombing are killed during a war to say that civilian casualties are unavoidable, yet seem unwilling to take the same realistic view about terrorist attacks on our own shores. The truth is that some people will be killed in terrorist attacks, as deeply unpleasant as this is to stomach. I think Britons accepted this to a great extent during the years of the IRA threat, and the reaction to the 7 July 2005 attacks was also pleasingly low-key — certainly, it was out of step with the government's attitude that we should all get swept up in the general terrorism panic, and accept draconian measures as a response.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Exactly.

It is interesting, I think, that those on the right are always the first when civilians in whichever country we and our allies happen to be bombing are killed during a war to say that civilian casualties are unavoidable, yet seem unwilling to take the same realistic view about terrorist attacks on our own shores. The truth is that some people will be killed in terrorist attacks, as deeply unpleasant as this is to stomach. I think Britons accepted this to a great extent during the years of the IRA threat, and the reaction to the 7 July 2005 attacks was also pleasingly low-key — certainly, it was out of step with the government's attitude that we should all get swept up in the general terrorism panic, and accept draconian measures as a response.

I will just say those on the right who are always quick to dismiss civilian casualties in foreign wars while making the most of those on home soil are probably hypocrites, one must forgive them for wanting to defend their own.

I think it isn't in the nature of you Brits to panic over this stuff and that is kind of off putting to people like Fiero who have lived in the US or me over here in Canada. We have never really had terrorists of any sort and even the most benign leaders over here will call out the militia in a heart beat if there is an actual occurence. One only has to look up up the renowned pacificist at heart (my opinion only mind you) Pierre Trudeau who was our PM when the FLQ terrorist group showed up and kidnapped a British diplomat off the streets of Montreal. They also killed Denis Laporte, a Quebec gov't official and had been putting bombs in mail boxes all over Montreal. When the kidnapping occured and Laporte's body was found in a car, Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act and called out the Army to patrol the capital and Quebec's major cities.

An overreaction? OH you bet, but it is typical of how a benign left of center politician can react over here in North America when there is any mention of terrorism. We didn't have WW2 or the constant unrest of the various red terrorists in Italy or Germany near by, nor the constant threat of the IRA to numb us to this. In North America, whether it is the US or Canada there are no real terrorists with the odd exception of the odd loon such as a Timothy McVeigh. The thing is, people over here never have been able to escape the naive thought that "it cant happen here" so when it does, there is an overreaction. 9/11 was a massive kick in the ego and psyche of America in particular and with no wonder. It was/is one of the most terrifying terrorist events and was done on national TV with the whole nation watching. So you must forgive the Americans if they are a tad touchy about losing their own. They happen to value human life of their citizens. They, contrary to popular belief do care about others overseas, although often show it in strange forms....

[BDunnell]

So you must forgive the Americans if they are a tad touchy about losing their own. They happen to value human life of their citizens.

So does every civilised nation, it must be said.

[Daniel]

Exactly.

It is interesting, I think, that those on the right are always the first when civilians in whichever country we and our allies happen to be bombing are killed during a war to say that civilian casualties are unavoidable, yet seem unwilling to take the same realistic view about terrorist attacks on our own shores. The truth is that some people will be killed in terrorist attacks, as deeply unpleasant as this is to stomach. I think Britons accepted this to a great extent during the years of the IRA threat, and the reaction to the 7 July 2005 attacks was also pleasingly low-key — certainly, it was out of step with the government's attitude that we should all get swept up in the general terrorism panic, and accept draconian measures as a response.

I must admit I was a little nervous when I first travelled on the underground just a little over a month later purely because well I was in an unfamiliar country doing something which was unfamiliar to me. But after I'd been on for all of 2 minutes it all melted away and I was soon popping up in all sorts of places in London and finding a different season above ground everytime I went up :mark:

[steve_spackman]

So does every civilised nation, it must be said.

good point

[BDunnell]

I must admit I was a little nervous when I first travelled on the underground just a little over a month later purely because well I was in an unfamiliar country doing something which was unfamiliar to me. But after I'd been on for all of 2 minutes it all melted away and I was soon popping up in all sorts of places in London and finding a different season above ground everytime I went up :mark:

I will admit to having been just a tad apprehensive travelling on the Tube two days after, but common sense (not a phrase I really like — I agree with Stephen Fry's view about certain well-known northerners going on about 'What you need is a bit of bloody common sense, lad' and how it drives him 'f***ing nuts') told me that the statistical risk of coming to harm was so low that it didn't do to worry. Mind you, I know this to be the case about flying and I still have an irrational (non-terrorist-related) fear of that, despite my job, so I am obviously very inconsistent!

[Daniel]

I will admit to having been just a tad apprehensive travelling on the Tube two days after, but common sense (not a phrase I really like — I agree with Stephen Fry's view about certain well-known northerners going on about 'What you need is a bit of bloody common sense, lad' and how it drives him 'f***ing nuts') told me that the statistical risk of coming to harm was so low that it didn't do to worry. Mind you, I know this to be the case about flying and I still have an irrational (non-terrorist-related) fear of that, despite my job, so I am obviously very inconsistent!

Stephen Fry is great :up:

Funny how people who are usually veryn rational do/think silly things :)

[Hondo]

I apologize for a lack of clarity. While fear for physical safety is a legitimate concern, there seems to be a greater fear of somehow not being politically correct while dealing with others, thereby causing some imagined offence. In theory multiculturism sounds great but I don't believe it works in reality. While different cultures can co-exist within a country, it is usually accompanied by a degree of friction from mild to severe that sooner or later causes problems. Especially as populations change and what was once the majority becomes the minority. I'm not picking on anybody, this is just a scenario from my western point of view:

If I desired to immigrate to Britain it stands to reason there must be some basis for that desire. Maybe the conditions in my own country are deplorable and Britain is the only country I can get into quickly, perhaps because of past colonial affiliations or as a member of the commonwealth. Maybe I see better economic opportunities in Britain. Maybe I admire British history and want to be a part of that society. Maybe I have a soft spot for people that spell things funny and drive on the wrong side of the road. Maybe I'm fleeing real political or religeous persecution. Regardless of reasons, I should be willing to voluntarily and wholeheartedly accept British culture and participate in the institutions that made it what it is. That British culture is the building block cornerstone on which the entire society that I admire or fled to is built upon. Where my religion conflicts with my new culture, I need to modify my religion a little and God will just have to understand. To expect or demand my newly adopted country to modify it's culture for my comfort is not only rude, but arrogance. My culture and the sewer it produced are what I'm fleeing from. Yet, knowing what my culture created, I want my new country to embrace my culture? No, that's ridiculous. If my religion calls for me to sacrifice a goat every Friday night I'm pretty sure Britain is going to take a dim view on that sort of thing. Is that interferring with the practice of my religion? Yes it is. But, the practice of my freedom of religion does not allow it to violate the cultural norms of my new country. If I want to burn goats, I need to go home. I'm not saying one should forget their old culture and heritage. What I am saying is that the culture of my new country is what made it the country I wanted to come to and be part of. I need to consign my former one to the scrapbook of memories and get with the program.

[BDunnell]

In theory multiculturism sounds great but I don't believe it works in reality. While different cultures can co-exist within a country, it is usually accompanied by a degree of friction from mild to severe that sooner or later causes problems.

I don't believe it ought to be a problem, because good, sensible people on both 'sides' can and do co-exist perfectly. It's only those who behave badly or unreasonably that cause the problems, and I don't think that is reason enough to give up on multiculturalism.

[Hondo]

I'd say they co-exist tolerantly, not perfectly. You have cultural differences in the USA between north and south, California and the rest of the country, Canada with the English and French factions, etc. They get along, but not perfectly.

Anway, I believe an immigrant situation is different and an immigrant has a duty to accept the new culture, not change it to allow for their former lifestyle.

[markabilly]

I don't believe it ought to be a problem, because good, sensible people on both 'sides' can and do co-exist perfectly. It's only those who behave badly or unreasonably that cause the problems, and I don't think that is reason enough to give up on multiculturalism.

But of course it depends on the nature of the culture. Unfortunately almost all cultures (perhaps as a fundemental element of human nature) have a built in view that they are superior, and theirs is the only true righteous path, and so seek to dominant and eradicate others. Catholic church is a long standing historical example of a religion based upon turning the other cheek and forgiveness, yet gladly burning folks to assist them on their way to heaven for having ever so slightly different points of view in some immaterial area.....indeed excommunicating an entire country and religion such as the Eastern Orthodox long before the later Prostestant battles.

And Britian has nothing to brag about here, and plenty of such examples, both in countries such as India as well as in their own country and Ireland......

And if you are not an infidel, it is because you are moslem.
And if you are an infidel, you need your head chopped off, well, that sounds like a great culture to plan on co-existing with....... :eek:


I apologize for a lack of clarity. While fear for physical safety is a legitimate concern, there seems to be a greater fear of somehow not being politically correct while dealing with others, thereby causing some imagined offence. In theory multiculturism sounds great but I don't believe it works in reality. While different cultures can co-exist within a country, it is usually accompanied by a degree of friction from mild to severe that sooner or later causes problems. Especially as populations change and what was once the majority becomes the minority. I'm not picking on anybody, this is just a scenario from my western point of view:

If I desired to immigrate to Britain it stands to reason there must be some basis for that desire. Maybe the conditions in my own country are deplorable and Britain is the only country I can get into quickly, perhaps because of past colonial affiliations or as a member of the commonwealth. Maybe I see better economic opportunities in Britain. Maybe I admire British history and want to be a part of that society. Maybe I have a soft spot for people that spell things funny and drive on the wrong side of the road. Maybe I'm fleeing real political or religeous persecution. Regardless of reasons, I should be willing to voluntarily and wholeheartedly accept British culture and participate in the institutions that made it what it is. That British culture is the building block cornerstone on which the entire society that I admire or fled to is built upon. Where my religion conflicts with my new culture, I need to modify my religion a little and God will just have to understand. To expect or demand my newly adopted country to modify it's culture for my comfort is not only rude, but arrogance. My culture and the sewer it produced are what I'm fleeing from. Yet, knowing what my culture created, I want my new country to embrace my culture? No, that's ridiculous. If my religion calls for me to sacrifice a goat every Friday night I'm pretty sure Britain is going to take a dim view on that sort of thing. Is that interferring with the practice of my religion? Yes it is. But, the practice of my freedom of religion does not allow it to violate the cultural norms of my new country. If I want to burn goats, I need to go home. I'm not saying one should forget their old culture and heritage. What I am saying is that the culture of my new country is what made it the country I wanted to come to and be part of. I need to consign my former one to the scrapbook of memories and get with the program.

You be so currently politically incorrect, gee, I thinking you need a good burning at the stake to keep your soul from being lost forever!!!

Unfortunately history compels the conclusion that you are so right

Those countries that have succeeeded are those countries that have been a melting pot that disolved differences into one unity.

In the process, they may borrow differences, change, respond and adopt differences, or even become different from all the cultures, but " truly multi-cultural"???
Only those that do not, that remain a house dividied can not stand (to quote A Lincoln) and very quckly collapse with one or the other domninanting

Nope

[BDunnell]

Anway, I believe an immigrant situation is different and an immigrant has a duty to accept the new culture, not change it to allow for their former lifestyle.

But neither should the immigrant be forced into some sort of bland homogeneity, for this doesn't exist anyway.

[Hondo]

As the immigrant came on his own, knowing what culture awaited him, I think he has a duty to embrace his new culture. Otherwise, don't leave your own culture. Obviously, you left your home because your own culture couldn't produce or sustain the life you desire.

In Britain's case, you almost have reverse colonization going on. Most all of your former colonies are larger than Britain. As immigrants from those countries become more numerous they also become a political power and, in time, an overwhelming political power if they wish. In time they will bring changes you do not care for.

[BDunnell]

As the immigrant came on his own, knowing what culture awaited him, I think he has a duty to embrace his new culture. Otherwise, don't leave your own culture. Obviously, you left your home because your own culture couldn't produce or sustain the life you desire.

I do not believe people of other cultures can be expected to give them up completely in favour of conforming with some pre-defined norm in the country they move to. What on earth are those norms, and how are they to be defined? Clearly, laws have to be upheld, and I would have thought they covered most potential problems — inappropriate treatment of women, cruelty to animals, terrorism, etc. But beyond that I struggle to see how you could seek to define norms. It certainly can't be done in religious terms. After all, as an atheist I don't conform to the perceived norm in Britain.

[ioan]

Hey..... Mormons have come to my door in the past trying to tell me how great their religion is and I've happily told them to **** off :)

I bet you wouldn't have said that if it was a Jihadist covered with C4 and yelling some incomprehensible bull$hit. :D

[ioan]

As the immigrant came on his own, knowing what culture awaited him, I think he has a duty to embrace his new culture. Otherwise, don't leave your own culture. Obviously, you left your home because your own culture couldn't produce or sustain the life you desire.

Totally agree with you.
If one decides to live in another country with another culture that makes it possible for him/her to have a higher life standard than he/she should embrace this culture.
Otherwise in the long term they will either dilute or weaken the countries culture which in turn will lead to lower life standards which combined with some nationalist movement can lead to a disaster.

[Hondo]

You be so currently politically incorrect, gee, I thinking you need a good burning at the stake to keep your soul from being lost forever!!!

You can't burn people at the stake anymore. It's a toothless punishment in the US. By the time you got the local, state & federal permits, an EPA waiver, having Al Gore size you for greenhouse gasses, cut the chains that the tree huggers used to attach themselves to the firewood, completed the environmental impact study, and shot Smokey the Bear for smacking you in the face with a shovel everytime you tried to light the fire, your intended victim will have died of old age.

[Easy Drifter]

And your hunting license and bear tag plus your local burn permit hoping that the 3 hour period on a Feb 29th that it is issued for does not come during a total fire ban. :s mokin:

[donKey jote]

If one decides to live in another country with another culture that makes it possible for him/her to have a higher life standard than he/she should embrace this culture.
Otherwise in the long term they will either dilute or weaken the countries culture which in turn will lead to lower life standards which combined with some nationalist movement can lead to a disaster.
He/she should embrace those parts he needs to get along, he/she should abide by the laws of the country but he/she should not be forced or expected to give up his own culture.
I've embraced the Schweinshaxe and Sauerkraut but there's no way I'm giving up on Marmite, milk in my breakfast tea, orange marmelade, curry, plenty of garlic and virgin olive oil, jamón serrano, fabada... good job there's no culture police regarding dunking biscuits here either :)

Culture is not static.
If the country's culture is so weak as to be influenced negatively (says who? ) by a few immigrants, well... you can't really blame the immigrants.

[BDunnell]

Totally agree with you.
If one decides to live in another country with another culture that makes it possible for him/her to have a higher life standard than he/she should embrace this culture.
Otherwise in the long term they will either dilute or weaken the countries culture which in turn will lead to lower life standards which combined with some nationalist movement can lead to a disaster.

But how on earth would you enforce any of this? How do you define the norms to which immigrants should conform? Should those of us who don't conform with all the norms in our own country lose our citizenship? I agree that there are problems with integration, but I think life would be depressingly bland if everybody is forced into a 'one size fits all' society. As I said, existing laws ought to be enough to cover many potential problems.

[BDunnell]

Culture is not static.
If the country's culture is so weak as to be influenced negatively (says who? ) by a few immigrants, well... you can't really blame the immigrants.

Absolutely right.

[donKey jote]

just watched another interesting Panorama - Muslim First, British Second from BBC1

a must see for uncle Fousto :laugh: :laugh:



Documentary
Panorama
BBC1 20:30 - 21:00 30 min
16th February 09

MI5 say that they cannot keep tabs on all of the country's Muslim extremists.

As ministers prepare to announce a new counter-terrorism strategy, Panorama asks whether we should isolate or talk to the radicals, and examines suspicions that government-funded community projects are being covertly used to gather intelligence.



Maybe I should try a bit more integrating and respecting the laws of the land here by cutting out the torrenting :p :
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Malbec]

As the immigrant came on his own, knowing what culture awaited him, I think he has a duty to embrace his new culture. Otherwise, don't leave your own culture. Obviously, you left your home because your own culture couldn't produce or sustain the life you desire.


Not necessarily. Many immigrants to the UK came intending only to stay for a short while for economic reasons and got 'stuck'. For them there never was a feeling that they should adapt to the local culture, why should they since they weren't going to be a permanent part of it.

Your point raises an interesting question. To qualify for Dutch citizenship you have to watch a video and your response is recorded. If you express any intolerance of a gay couple kissing or topless bathing then you fail the test. The obvious question is, what if a Dutchman born and bred finds homosexuality or topless bathing offensive? Are they then stripped of Dutch citizenship?

Sure, immigrants ought to be receptive to local culture but then again we ought to remember that any culture contains a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions. Excluding immigrants who are a genuine threat to your local culture is going to be extremely difficult and indeed runs close to harming freedom of expression which most Western cultures hold as a core value. Why compromise on a core value because of old fashioned xenophobia?

[Malbec]

Totally agree with you.
If one decides to live in another country with another culture that makes it possible for him/her to have a higher life standard than he/she should embrace this culture.
Otherwise in the long term they will either dilute or weaken the countries culture which in turn will lead to lower life standards which combined with some nationalist movement can lead to a disaster.

Total nonsense.

Introducing new cultures does not lead to a reduced living standard. Otherwise the US of A would be a poverty stricken dump.

If anything introducing new cultures via immigration leads to economic growth and increased living standards.