Thursday, February 12, 2009

In the Wilder-ness

A quick word on Geert Wilders. I believe in freedom of speech. The Labour party does not and has thus banned someone from talking about his view point.

An e-mail correspondent phrased it quite nicely when they said, "It's insulting to the Nazis to compare this lot to them."

Okay, so they haven't started rounding people up yet but they are banning freedom of speech. They are supporting thought crimes.

They are a fucking danger to our civil liberties and we can't afford to keep them in power for any longer.

Look at the facts, Lord Ahmed: you are the one inciting violence, not Lord Pearson or Baroness Cox. Or Geert Wilders although that barnet could do some serious damage.

By the way, the law which Jack Boot Smith has used to ban this man from entering the UK is the same law which stops us from banning murderers and rapists from living and working over here. Hands up who is fucking surprised that it's an EU law?

4 comments:

Witterings From Witney said...

When a government bends its knee to the will of a religious minority for fear of 'upsetting' said religious minority - there is something wrong.

When a government begins to decide someone's opinions would cause a threat - there is something wrong.

When a government can act and in so doing make me ashamed of my own country - there is something wrong.

All Shook Up said...

Ahmed it was, in 2005, who hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir.

Shamir's views include urging Jews to drop Judaism and convert to Christianity, belief in the Jewish blood libel, Jewish involvement in recent massacres, that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the press and, reportedly, also suggested that the large Muslim population in Britain was important to turn the tide of 'Judaic Values' in Britain.

subrosa said...

Well said Trixy. Plenty comments around tonight regarding this. Some lawyers blogging that the ban is illegal.

an ex-apprentice said...

Dear Mrs Trixie,

I believe the EU law in this area is being driven by the ECHR, who seem determined to ban giving offence.

Without the right to offend, there is no freedom of speech. Perhaps this is their aim, or maybe they're just morons.

The reason why this right not to be offended has never before been granted is obvious: offence is subjective, cannot be proved, and cannot be challenged in a court of law or anywhere else.

The worst aspect is that it allows the imposition of Sharia. By simply claiming offence, the likes of Lord Ahmed can silence criticism of Islam, which is, of course, forbidden not just to muslims, but now to us all.