Geert Wilders, the rightwing Dutch politician accused of Islamophobia, was today refused entry to the UK after arriving at Heathrow airport in London.
Wilders was due to show his 17-minute film Fitna, which criticises the Qur'an as a "fascist book", at the House of Lords today. But on Tuesday he received a letter from the Home Office refusing him entry because his opinions "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety".
He arrived at Heathrow shortly after 2pm and was questioned by immigration officials.
On the plane from Amsterdam, the controversial leader of the Freedom party told Dutch journalists he had travelled to Britain in December without any fuss. "I don't see why there's a problem with me this time," he said. "I don't understand why they allowed me to come before and not now."
Asked whether he had a message for the UK government, he said: "I would say to them, 'Even if you don't like me and don't like the things I say then you should let me in for freedom of speech. If you don't, you are looking like cowards.'"
Fitna intersperses images of the September 11 attacks with quotations from the Islamic holy book and its release last year sparked violent protests in the Muslim world. In 2007, Wilders called for the Qur'an to be banned and likened it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Last month, an Amsterdam court ruled that he should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred but Wilders has appealed against the decision.
The Home Office letter, sent on behalf of the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said Wilders's presence in the UK "would pose a genuine, present and significantly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The secretary of state is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in the film and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public safety in the UK."
The Dutch foreign minister, Maxime Verhagen, said his government would press for a reversal of the travel ban on Wilders, and a UK Independence party peer, Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to Britain, said the screening of the film would go ahead today, whether he was there or not.
Speaking outside the House of Lords, Pearson said he disagreed with some of Wilders's views but was "coming at this from the angle of free speech". Pearson described the Dutch politician as a "very brave man" and said he did not think he was a racist.
"I think this man is raising one of the most important issues of our time, which is Islamic militarism, which is a violent jihad," said Pearson. "That's the issue that this man is raising, and I think that should be discussed much more, particularly amongst the vast majority of the mild Muslim community."
The peer initially said he did not believe there should be any limits to freedom of speech but when pressed conceded that there should be "a very few", such as language that incited violence. Pearson said he believed a Hitler-type figure should be allowed to speak in public in Britain. "I would go and laugh at him. You couldn't take him seriously, could you?" he said.
The peer revealed he had put down a motion for debate in the Lords urging the government to sponsor a conference into whether the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an contained justification for violence.
The National Secular Society president, Terry Sanderson, said he wrote to the home secretary saying she should not have denied an application by a "democratically elected politician from a sovereign state who wants to come and express an opinion".
"It may be a controversial opinion but he is entitled to express it," he said.
The Home Office has said it would "stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country".
A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain described Wilders as "an open and relentless preacher of hate".
"We have no problem with the challenge of criticisms to our faith, but the film that will be screened by Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox is nothing less than a cheap and tacky attempt to whip up hysteria against Muslims," he said.
The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said that while it was important to defend freedom of speech, Wilders "has overstepped the line that should be defended in a civilised society".
Wilders said he had already shown his film to Denmark's parliament and intended to take it to Italy and the US House of Representatives in the coming weeks.
Comments in chronological order (Total 430 comments)
12 February 2009 3:24PM
Or worse. I have no time at all for his twisted views but you don't deny people entry or shut them up just because you disagree with them.
12 February 2009 3:25PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:26PM
How many articles are there now about this?
If it wasn't for the shortsighted actions of Jacqui Smith, Wilders would have come and gone, been ignored and would have missed out on all this free publicity.
If that wasn't bad enough, again the government has managed to piss off a European neighbour for no good reason. Well done, give yourself a big pat on the back.
12 February 2009 3:29PM
I am disgusted to be British. Home Secretary Smith is a traitor to Britishness.
12 February 2009 3:31PM
It is a shame. Perhaps they should let him set a projector up at the airport and show it there. It can't be worse than the terrible piped-in news broadcasts typically shown at airports.
12 February 2009 3:31PM
Does this government have any idea of how to run a democratic country? ... I think not. I don't agree wth Geert Wilders policies but I agree with freedom of speech. That we are no allowing him entry just shows that the Governement have no backbone. It pityful and depressing.
12 February 2009 3:34PM
Both Wilders and Pearson are thoroughy unsavoury characters, operating on the fringes of far-right politics. But thanks to the incompetence and heavy-handedness of the British government, they will have fantastic publicity across Europe and, grotesquely, can paint themselves as defenders of freedom.
I wonder how many hits this will generate for Wilders' film? If this is so blindingly obvious to hundreds of CiF contributors, most of whom presumaby have jobs and other things to do with our lives, why didn't anyone at the Home Office think this through?
12 February 2009 3:35PM
Lots of people are excluded from coming into this country for all sorts of reasons. From Martha Stewart to Louis Farakhan.
Of course there isn't unrestricted free speech here.
We all know perfectly well what we can and can't say without getting ourselves into trouble. Even the "islamists" are getting sent down for novel new, New Labour offences like "Non-specific incitement to murder". Let's remember that this particular creepy little man faces incitement charges in his own country too. Why should he be able to import his brand of poison here without restriction? Britishness has got nothing to do with it.
12 February 2009 3:36PM
So let me get this straight. His movie will still be shown here, he and his supporters are able to have their message heard in UK through various spokespeople including Pearson and Cox but his physical presence on British soil is likely to threaten harmony and safety. How ridiculous.
Like RoyA1 I doubt I would care about or support what he has to say (I can't be certain as I don't tend to follow the rantings of right-wingers that closely) but it seems pretty foolish to deny someone the right to freedom of speech just because they come from another country.
12 February 2009 3:36PM
He should have been given access to visit this country. People would then have the opportunity to challenge his vile, prejudiced views.
He could not have asked for better publicity with what has now unfolded.
Once again the government shoots itself in the foot.
12 February 2009 3:37PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:37PM
"Wilders called for the Qur'an to be banned and likened it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf"
Is this correct? If so he can hardly complain about his right to free speech being curtailed
12 February 2009 3:37PM
Jacqui Smith is the one who poses 'a genuine, present and significantly serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society' - freedom of speech, conscience, and opinion. Supposedly an integral part of our democracy.
Next time she goes off on holiday abroad to spend some of the £116,000 she pocketed at taxpayers' expense, can we please refuse to let her back in at Heathrow?
12 February 2009 3:39PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:40PM
As a Dutchman, I must applaud the Home Office for its decision.
This man is obviously a bigot and an idiot, exemplified by his choice of haircut.
It's already annoying having him in my own country and I am ashamed for his actions and supporters. Looking at the hatred he's spreading here in Holland, I think it's a good decision to protect yourselves from this man.
12 February 2009 3:40PM
Jacqui Smith is the person who should be booted out of this country. She has absolutely no idea about anything. This has been highlighted by her archaic views on drugs and drug classification.
12 February 2009 3:41PM
Perfidious Albion, no. Dhimmi England, yes.
12 February 2009 3:43PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:44PM
anyone who wears a tie like that deserves a full body cavity search.
12 February 2009 3:44PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:45PM
This is an utterly retarded decision formulated by someone without the intelligence to understand that Geert Wilders had cemented his own sword firmly in place to fall upon; he argues in favour of freedom of speech by calling of the banning of the Qu'ran???!!! In banning his entrance, Smith has managed to publicise and further her Dutch friend's cause.
12 February 2009 3:45PM
In a way, this bizarre muffling of freedom of speech actually proves his point.
If this film gets shown, and packs of those who are "insulted" by it start torching and blowing things up, or killing... then yes, those people are "evil".
What if the film had been shown and there was absolutely no reaction? It would be revealed as absurdly untrue.
Other faiths are subjected to things they find "insulting". The government's job is to protect freedoms, not to cushion the "insults" that reality often dishes up to believers. If one group responds violently to freedom of speech, the violence is the problem, not the freedom of speech.
Deal with the law-breakers — the violent people — not the people celebrating a supposedly guaranteed freedom.
12 February 2009 3:45PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:45PM
Hadn't realised he was allowed into the country in December 2008.
Arse/elbow problems, Home Office?
@diederik: you're right about the haircut. How long before that is grounds for a banning order?
12 February 2009 3:47PM
the long and short of it is
there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, each nation sets its own limits on what is and isn't admissable. It is illegal to deny the holocaust in some countries: how does that fit in with your "right" to express that view?
No doubt the British Home Secretary has messed up on this issue, turning a molehill into a mountain and playing right into this tosspot of a Dutch MP's hands: but ultimately it is the UK government's express right to deny entry to anyone they deem undesirable.
chrisjh,
don't worry the UK hasn't in any way managed to piss off a neighbour, the vast majority of people in NL and the overwhelming majority of MP's in the tweede kamer consider Mr Wilders to be exactly what we all know he is (right wing, populist eejit) and the "protests" the dutch foreign minister spoke of are lodged not even half-heartedly, he's following protocol but no more.
12 February 2009 3:49PM
I agree with bug bear.
This New Labour Government is a threat to our fundamental rights and freedoms, to the intellectual inheritance of the Enlightenment and to our culture itself.
This decision betrays a shameful moral and political cowardice. It appeases the intolerant, the irrational and the dogmatic.
New Labour are enemies of the open society.
They must be resisted.
12 February 2009 3:49PM
"his opinions "threaten community harmony and therefore public safety"."
What exactly is 'community harmony' and when did it become more important than individual liberties that this nation has held dear for hundreds of years? Was a law passed? Is ther enay definition of this dangerously bebulou sterm on thestatue books? Can people who believe in liberty, free speech and reaosn debate form a community or do you have to believe in some medieval text to qualify?
12 February 2009 3:52PM
'Even if you don't like me and don't like the things I say then you should let me in for freedom of speech. If you don't, you are looking like cowards.'
So he is a coward himself? He regularily asks the government to refuse entry to people he does not like. Creepy little clown.
12 February 2009 3:53PM
I can't believe there are so many of you defending that man's "freedom of speech". I 've actually started seeing the video and couldn't finish because it's just an one sided propaganda with a clearly xenophobic if not racist content. Promoting hate is not about being a good politician nor it does any good to the Islamic-Christian relationships.
12 February 2009 3:53PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:53PM
@royA1
Ah, but you do if you are Jaqui Smith. The most authoritarian and unimaginative Home Secretary we have had in the UK for quite some time. Get the gone Ms Smith. I do not share any of your views.
12 February 2009 3:55PM
Another blow struck for free speech. Makes you proud to be British, no?
12 February 2009 3:58PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
12 February 2009 3:58PM
shoelessjoe: ""Wilders called for the Qur'an to be banned and likened it to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf"
Is this correct? If so he can hardly complain about his right to free speech being curtailed"
As you are so keen on censorship, I think you should shut up too. Qucikly, we can all start telling each other that we have forfeited free speech... Do you see how it goes?
We shall all stop debating. Instead we shall look to take offence and silence our opponents.
Actually, that is pretty much what political correctness is all about. Isn't it?
-------------------------
NB: Given that we all meant to living enraptured by the country's growing diversity, it appears that community cohesion is a little more fragile than the official panegyrics suggest. Bans such as this imply that we are sitting more on a powder keg than living in a multicultural paradise.
It won't get any better if we all look to take offence and silence those we dislike.
12 February 2009 3:58PM
Four Years ago Lord Ahmed invited Israel Shamir to the House of Lords to give this speech about "Jews and Empire" jampacked full of stereotypes about evil Jews and their influence on society . Its not pleasant stuff and would offend many Jews and others who have developed the intelligence no tter everyone in the same religion with the same brush. Lord Ahmed wanted the guy to have his free speech but when the boot is on the other foot he screams about his community being under attack. The man does not have one ounce of integrity.
"This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance – indeed, the same people who were all for the Russian or French or British Empire now became ardent supporters on the new American Empire. Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour, but it is actually love of Empire per se, and it does not matter who is the titular head of this Empire: Jews are good for an Empire, as long as they feel the Empire is good for them.
Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England. In my view, Islam is a form of Christianity, even nearer to the Nicene Creed than some Pentecostals or other American denominations. What is more important, they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide. Let us hope that its introduction will be important for Englands future."
http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Westminster.htm
12 February 2009 3:59PM
I've never agreed with preventing people from speaking.
We have to win through argument, This sends the wrong message.
I though we were supposed to have 'free speech'
Let him in. Sure but allow protests and ensure that they are peaceful protests!
12 February 2009 3:59PM
personally i agree that he should have been kept out.
mind you if he wanted to get in he should have changed the film to attack the Talmud and the ex mayor of London and his ilk would have welcomed him ith open arms and called him the voice of reason
12 February 2009 4:01PM
I have no time for Jacqui Smith, Big Sister, but isn't there a certain inconsistency in wanting the Qur'an banned but then insist on your own right to freedom of expression.
Why he's being given any publicity is beyond me.
12 February 2009 4:01PM
We allow Abu Hamza to preach in the street!
We allow Anjem Choudary to boast of the "Glorious 19"
We allow Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who backs up Mr. Wilders) to debate at Universities!
So why ban Geert Wilders?
12 February 2009 4:01PM
I don't know anything about the man but I just watched his film "Fitna" on Google video.
There is nothing in it that I can see that is not 100% factual. It is obviously sequenced to convey a message that highlight a possible flaw in our multicultural liberal immigration policies.
Yes it is presented and directed against radical Islamists whom he alleges are reading ancient passages of the Quran in a too literal manner and using it as a basis to wage a barbaric war against liberal western society and to suppress freedom in their own regions as well as ours.
Though there is an unfortunate sequence regarding European population size that wrongly implies that all Muslims are radical Islamists, I did not really see the whole film being directed against Muslims as a whole, just the radical islamists who are causing the world a lot of grief.
Based solely on the film, I cannot understand why a free society would suppress his views when they are strictly based on factual evidence. He has a thesis that should legitimately be debated. The fact that we are currently at war with radical Islamists makes the topic somewhat current.
I guess the government position is that he is promoting hate, but in the film he is pointing out that others are openly promoting hate against us and such people are not being addressed. So is he promoting hate against people who are promoting hate or against all Muslims?
If he is promoting hate against all Muslims then I agree with the government's position.
I would like to hear more about the issues that he has raised so that I can consider it more, but I am now being denied that. I must now trust that our politicians and leaders know what they are doing with respect to this matter.
12 February 2009 4:05PM
Oh dear I bet he's laughing all the way home !
And his web site is now on over load !
Very very dangerous move even if you don't like what some one says you must be allowed to listen to take an informed view
Regards
AdL
12 February 2009 4:08PM
tis true, flanker... this is the right of any sovereign country. Personally I'd be happy to keep the likes of Wilders and Abu Hamza out - times are precarious enough as it is.
12 February 2009 4:11PM
In that they're both autobiographies of mid-20th century German fascist leaders?
I presume this means he wants Mein Kampf banned as well.
12 February 2009 4:11PM
another massive cock up by the home office. had he been allowed in, barely anyone would have noticed, and those that did would hopefully have laughed their socks off at this man & his rather strange ramblings. he's got more publicity for his cause now than he could ever have wished.
12 February 2009 4:11PM
NB I in no way at all support Wilders or his Ilk.
I do think that a huge own goal has been scored by not letting him into England. The amount of media attention that he has gotten is massive. Having lived in the Netherlands for the last 20 years, I know that media attention is what Wilders lives for. Whenever he is in the media his popularity surges and then when its quite for a while it starts to ebb away. It is best simply to let people like Wilders speak and otherwise ignore him.
Or if you must simply point out the fallacy of somebodies party who is called "The Freedom Party" but who at the same time wants to ban the Koran. I'm not entirely sure how making books illegal increases freedom.
12 February 2009 4:12PM
An uncanny resemblance to Cacophonix, the over-zealous bard in Asterix & Obelix. Now there's a film he could star in.
12 February 2009 4:14PM
Amguada, why do you admit that there is a sequence in the film that clearly is untruthful hate speech against Muslims but then say
"Based solely on the film, I cannot understand why a free society would suppress his views when they are strictly based on factual evidence."
Is this the usual thought process of the anti-Islamic brigade?
12 February 2009 4:15PM
@ 2026
Which Muslims exactly? I don't see any Muslims there protesting against him. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet. I think actually, most Muslims just want to be out of the news for a while! As for Abu Hamza, could you point out where he is exactly?
12 February 2009 4:15PM
To my register my reaction at this appeasement to Islamic sensitivities in the UK at the expense of free speech is there anyway I can join his party to show my complete disgust at her craven action.
12 February 2009 4:16PM
Hirshi Ali, Theo Van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, and now Geert Wilders. Each tried to make a stand for their opinions and what has happened so far?
Hirshi Ali lived under police protection before fleeing to the US. Her crime? She spoke out against abuse of women in the Dutch islamic culture - she still lives with death threats against her.
Theo Van Gogh had his throat cut in a busy Amsterdam street for exercising his free speech (just a couple of minutes after taking his son to school).
Pim Fortuyn was gunned down - apparently he too was too outspoken.
And now I see that Geert Wilders is being denied access to my country. *Shame* on the British governement and foolish too!
If their opinions are sooo bad, then let them speak - and demolish their arguments through rigourous public debate. Deny them the chance to speak and the 'conspiracy advocates' will get to work.
This ban on an elected member of governement sounds like an attempt to give the BNP more votes.
How short-sited the British government is... I don't regret leaving my country behind for a moment - not anymore.
* Freedom of speech no longer matters - just ban the people you disagree with
* Bribery is ok - when they have Saudi citizenship
* Lying is fine - when we talk about going to war for all of the wrong reasons
Thank god that I don't have to do the citizenship test - I would fail because i can't agree to removing freedom of speech, hypocrasy and telling lies...
What has my country become????