ChatterBank1 min ago
Is this in breach of EU law?
20 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-114162 2/Diplomatic-row-Jacqui-Smith-bans-Britain-Dut ch-MP-planned-anti-Islam-film-House-Lords.html
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen - a political opponent of Mr Wilders complained -The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,' he said.
Perhaps he should demand his 'Human Rights' and be allowed into the UK.
At least it works for these hate preaching Muslim Clerics.
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen - a political opponent of Mr Wilders complained -The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,' he said.
Perhaps he should demand his 'Human Rights' and be allowed into the UK.
At least it works for these hate preaching Muslim Clerics.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Seems pretty fair to me.
Same goes for anyone who has the potential to stir up racial hatred:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1959105.stm
Same goes for anyone who has the potential to stir up racial hatred:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1959105.stm
There have been protests against this controversial film wherever it has been shown.
I have not objection myself to a right wing Dutch MP coming to this country and showing this film to his friends.
But there will be many that will object, and will use tyheir right to protest. There will be large protests similar to Danish Cartoons ones. Mr Wilders seems reluctant to pay for any extra Policing, so the tax payer will pick up the tab for the huge policing costs that will inevitably be incurred. Still, this is the cost we must pay to defend freedom of speech in this country.
Why this Peer cannot download it from the internet like any other curious Islamaphobe and save us all a lot of money and aggro is another question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)
I have not objection myself to a right wing Dutch MP coming to this country and showing this film to his friends.
But there will be many that will object, and will use tyheir right to protest. There will be large protests similar to Danish Cartoons ones. Mr Wilders seems reluctant to pay for any extra Policing, so the tax payer will pick up the tab for the huge policing costs that will inevitably be incurred. Still, this is the cost we must pay to defend freedom of speech in this country.
Why this Peer cannot download it from the internet like any other curious Islamaphobe and save us all a lot of money and aggro is another question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_(film)
I think you need to read your own link:
Under UK and EU immigration rules, a person can be refused entry to Britain, 'if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.'
So no
And yes it does cut both ways despite what your persecution complex tells you:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/artic le5027690.ece
https://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34211/Muslim-cleric-refused-entry-into-the-UK
and worst of all
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news /us-homemaker-martha-stewart-is-banned-from-en tering-britain-851591.html
Under UK and EU immigration rules, a person can be refused entry to Britain, 'if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.'
So no
And yes it does cut both ways despite what your persecution complex tells you:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/artic le5027690.ece
https://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34211/Muslim-cleric-refused-entry-into-the-UK
and worst of all
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news /us-homemaker-martha-stewart-is-banned-from-en tering-britain-851591.html
That's a laugh jake coming from a goverment who haven't got a clue on who and how many already get into this country now.
The UK Border and Immigration Agency released a statement saying the Government "continuesto oppose" entry to the UK for those who have been found guilty of "serious criminal offences abroad".
Then how is it they all come to Britain claiming political asylum, and then when we try to send some back, they claim if they are sent back they will face imprisonment or death in their own country?
So who decides what crimes they are guilty of in their own country, us or their own people?
The UK Border and Immigration Agency released a statement saying the Government "continuesto oppose" entry to the UK for those who have been found guilty of "serious criminal offences abroad".
Then how is it they all come to Britain claiming political asylum, and then when we try to send some back, they claim if they are sent back they will face imprisonment or death in their own country?
So who decides what crimes they are guilty of in their own country, us or their own people?
Exactly my point jake,
Objection to a dictatorship or being gay is not a serious criminal offence in this country but may be in the country of an asylum seeker.
Refuse entry for those who have been found guilty of "serious criminal offences abroad".
So do we refuse entry to political activists & gays?
Objection to a dictatorship or being gay is not a serious criminal offence in this country but may be in the country of an asylum seeker.
Refuse entry for those who have been found guilty of "serious criminal offences abroad".
So do we refuse entry to political activists & gays?
AOG
We refuse entry to polical activists:
Louis Farrakhan is still banned. I think his ban is now coming up for a quarter of a century.
Then how is it they all come to Britain claiming political asylum, and then when we try to send some back, they claim if they are sent back they will face imprisonment or death in their own country?
That's the art of overstatement.
We refuse entry to polical activists:
Louis Farrakhan is still banned. I think his ban is now coming up for a quarter of a century.
Then how is it they all come to Britain claiming political asylum, and then when we try to send some back, they claim if they are sent back they will face imprisonment or death in their own country?
That's the art of overstatement.
Gromit - �...like any other curious Islamaphobe...�
Islamaphobe.
That's a word that supposes people dislike Islam through some irrational fear.
It's a cheap and dishonest word that it puts every single person who distrusts, dislikes and fears Islam into the category of �irrational�.
A religion that subjugates women so that they become the possession of either their husbands or their fathers. That stops women leaving the house without a male family member. That lets young girls die in an inferno because they are not wearing the correct clothing -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1 874471.stm
That stones young girls to death for the 'crime' of being raped -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/770816 9.stm
There is nothing irrational about people's fear of Islam.
People are afraid of Islam because it is a barbaric and brutal religion that is steeped in war and death. Islam is inextricably linked with violence.
Islam without violence is like an egg-free omelette.
Islamaphobe.
That's a word that supposes people dislike Islam through some irrational fear.
It's a cheap and dishonest word that it puts every single person who distrusts, dislikes and fears Islam into the category of �irrational�.
A religion that subjugates women so that they become the possession of either their husbands or their fathers. That stops women leaving the house without a male family member. That lets young girls die in an inferno because they are not wearing the correct clothing -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1 874471.stm
That stones young girls to death for the 'crime' of being raped -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/770816 9.stm
There is nothing irrational about people's fear of Islam.
People are afraid of Islam because it is a barbaric and brutal religion that is steeped in war and death. Islam is inextricably linked with violence.
Islam without violence is like an egg-free omelette.
I think this just about sums it up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1141 806/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-How-Britain-cradle-libert y-sleepwalking-cultural-suicide.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1141 806/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-How-Britain-cradle-libert y-sleepwalking-cultural-suicide.html
The Ku Klux Klan are proponents of a fundamentalist Christian theology strongly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism, hoping to "reconstruct" the United States along biblical (primarily Old Testament) lines and establish a white-dominated theocracy. They have often used terrorism, violence, and acts of intimidation, such as cross burning and lynching, to oppress African Americans and other social or ethnic groups. Hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism have been issued against them, and many Klan members have been prosecuted
....
Aryan Nations is a white supremacist group founded by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, with headquarters listed as a Lexington, S.C. post office box. Aryan Nations followers admire Adolf Hitler and claim that minority group members are "mud people" and spawns of Satan. Aryan Nations doctrine follows that of Christian Identity which claims that Europeans are the lost tribe of Israel, Jews are satanic, blacks are subhuman, and the Federal Government is illegal
....
On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians from Poso, Indonesia, were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. Fourteen year sentences were given to two of the seventeen for their main roles in the killings, while ten were sentenced to twelve year terms. Five were convicted in separate hearings and received eight year sentences for their part in the "acts of terrorism by the use of violence." A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for the execution in 2006 of three Christian farmers, who were convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
....
Aryan Nations is a white supremacist group founded by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group Church of Jesus Christ-Christian, with headquarters listed as a Lexington, S.C. post office box. Aryan Nations followers admire Adolf Hitler and claim that minority group members are "mud people" and spawns of Satan. Aryan Nations doctrine follows that of Christian Identity which claims that Europeans are the lost tribe of Israel, Jews are satanic, blacks are subhuman, and the Federal Government is illegal
....
On July 26, 2007, 17 Christians from Poso, Indonesia, were convicted of religion-inspired terrorism under Indonesian law. Fourteen year sentences were given to two of the seventeen for their main roles in the killings, while ten were sentenced to twelve year terms. Five were convicted in separate hearings and received eight year sentences for their part in the "acts of terrorism by the use of violence." A Christian mob attacked, murdered, and beheaded two Muslim fishermen in September 2006, reportedly as retaliation for the execution in 2006 of three Christian farmers, who were convicted of leading a militant group which killed hundreds of Muslims in Poso in 2000
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik
Oneeyedvic - �Do the names Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Louis Farrakhan mean anything to you? ...But of course, that is a bit inconvenient to your argument isn't it.?�
Not in the slightest.
You see, what you're doing is confusing truth with mindless intolerance.
Briefly, Louis Farrakhan - �This was the man who had described Judaism as "a gutter religion", characterised Christianity as an oppressive faith linked to the slavery of black people and called Adolf Hitler "great", although he said later that he had meant "wickedly great". �
And �Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, claims that Islam justifies suicide bombings.�
I could bang on about these two prats but suffice to say that they preach hate.
However, Geert Wilders's film is not hate propaganda.
Unlike the two imbeciles you mentioned, Mr Wilders film does two things.
1) It shows appalling acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam.
2) It demonstrates that those actions are directly inspired by the Koran.
It does not preach hate. It simply tells the truth.
And it asks the question, why do we (ie. the Western nations) tolerate a religion that clearly hates and loathes our values, our way of life and our morality?
Open your eyes to what happening. If we allow this creeping Islamisation of western societies to continue unabated, we can all kiss goodbye to free speech.
No more unrestricted internet. No more having a private life. No more free speech.
Islamic heaven in fact.
Not in the slightest.
You see, what you're doing is confusing truth with mindless intolerance.
Briefly, Louis Farrakhan - �This was the man who had described Judaism as "a gutter religion", characterised Christianity as an oppressive faith linked to the slavery of black people and called Adolf Hitler "great", although he said later that he had meant "wickedly great". �
And �Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, claims that Islam justifies suicide bombings.�
I could bang on about these two prats but suffice to say that they preach hate.
However, Geert Wilders's film is not hate propaganda.
Unlike the two imbeciles you mentioned, Mr Wilders film does two things.
1) It shows appalling acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam.
2) It demonstrates that those actions are directly inspired by the Koran.
It does not preach hate. It simply tells the truth.
And it asks the question, why do we (ie. the Western nations) tolerate a religion that clearly hates and loathes our values, our way of life and our morality?
Open your eyes to what happening. If we allow this creeping Islamisation of western societies to continue unabated, we can all kiss goodbye to free speech.
No more unrestricted internet. No more having a private life. No more free speech.
Islamic heaven in fact.
As a frequent visitor to Turkey which was once a muslim state , I have noticed many changes since a religious party have taken power. Sometimes these things do happen slowly.
There is increased loss of internet sites which you cannot freely access, many young women are trying to return to wearing the veil and generally covering up but many of the other youngsters are saying but for Ataturk we would be living as they do in Saudi.
Ataturk must be turning in his grave.
However I disagree that islam is a violent religion, people that are carrying out many of these attacks may say they are doing it in the name of islam but they are no more religious than the average man on the street, Many of the true muslims are jsut as horrified as you and I. You cannot tar all people with the same brush.
There is increased loss of internet sites which you cannot freely access, many young women are trying to return to wearing the veil and generally covering up but many of the other youngsters are saying but for Ataturk we would be living as they do in Saudi.
Ataturk must be turning in his grave.
However I disagree that islam is a violent religion, people that are carrying out many of these attacks may say they are doing it in the name of islam but they are no more religious than the average man on the street, Many of the true muslims are jsut as horrified as you and I. You cannot tar all people with the same brush.
-- answer removed --
Nannyjill - Very eloquently put. But with a couple of problems...
You say that �You cannot tar all people with the same brush� and normally I would agree with you.
But Islam does tar everyone with the same brush. It does paint a picture of �us� and �them�.
The Koran is so intolerant of none muslims that it is difficult to read it without coming away with the feeling that everyone who isn't a muslim is somehow inferior to muslims.
And you state that, �...increased loss of internet sites which you cannot freely access...�. Yet again, another demonstration that the people who are at the 'head' of Islam want to and do control what you see and hear. It's textbook fascism.
Also, �...many young women are trying to return to wearing the veil and generally covering up...�. Why? Why are these women deliberately covering themselves up? Are they ashamed of their own God-given bodies, or are they covering up because they fear retribution if they don't?
Finally, �I disagree that Islam is a violent religion...�. I disagree with you. I think that Islam is extremely violent and the scriptures prove it.
However, I do agree that most muslims are not at all violent. The vast majority of muslims just want to get on with their lives and not bother anyone.
But there is a problem. And that problem is the Koran. You can be as moderate as you like (whilst you're allowed to be) but ultimately, you must adhere to your holy scripture. And your holy scripture unequivocally says, 'kill (or subjugate) the infidel'.
What will the moderate muslims do when push comes to shove? Will they follow their own moral code and refuse to punish the infidels? Or will they adhere to their holy book and smite those who disbelieve?
Do you ever want to be in a position where you might have to personally witness and experience Islamic morality?
You say that �You cannot tar all people with the same brush� and normally I would agree with you.
But Islam does tar everyone with the same brush. It does paint a picture of �us� and �them�.
The Koran is so intolerant of none muslims that it is difficult to read it without coming away with the feeling that everyone who isn't a muslim is somehow inferior to muslims.
And you state that, �...increased loss of internet sites which you cannot freely access...�. Yet again, another demonstration that the people who are at the 'head' of Islam want to and do control what you see and hear. It's textbook fascism.
Also, �...many young women are trying to return to wearing the veil and generally covering up...�. Why? Why are these women deliberately covering themselves up? Are they ashamed of their own God-given bodies, or are they covering up because they fear retribution if they don't?
Finally, �I disagree that Islam is a violent religion...�. I disagree with you. I think that Islam is extremely violent and the scriptures prove it.
However, I do agree that most muslims are not at all violent. The vast majority of muslims just want to get on with their lives and not bother anyone.
But there is a problem. And that problem is the Koran. You can be as moderate as you like (whilst you're allowed to be) but ultimately, you must adhere to your holy scripture. And your holy scripture unequivocally says, 'kill (or subjugate) the infidel'.
What will the moderate muslims do when push comes to shove? Will they follow their own moral code and refuse to punish the infidels? Or will they adhere to their holy book and smite those who disbelieve?
Do you ever want to be in a position where you might have to personally witness and experience Islamic morality?
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Technology14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
P M Qs..... The Understudies.... Usual...
News27 mins ago
