Lords taking liberties?

The best of the politics blogs brought to you by Paul Evans. This week read about the Geert Wilders row, Derek Draper, and protesting in Japan

Liberty and Lords

Thursday 12th was an unlucky day for Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose absurd hairdo and appalling film-making skills were sent packing at Heathrow.

While few had any time for 'Fitna,' the crude and offensive film that Wilders was hoping to screen in the House of Lords, as a liberty-loving bunch, bloggers were almost universally dismayed by the decision to ban him from entering the UK. The role of Lord Ahmed (a man who merrily hosted the European racist Jöran Jermas) in persuading the Home Office to refused him entry came under particular scrutiny.

On Pickled Politics, Sid contrasted his response with that of the Quilliam Foundation, which: “believes that although many of Wilders’ public statements are bigoted, ill-informed and offensive to people of all faiths, this is not an adequate reason to prevent him from coming to the UK”. He noted:

“Lord Ahmed’s reaction is most certainly a robust denouncement of Wilders. But it resembles too closely for comfort, the ugly gesture of a rabble-rousing feudal oligarch, threatening mob violence against the House of Lords.”

And for Cranmer this was a serious matter indeed. “Lord Ahmed,” he contested, “must be prosescuted for treason”. He sets out the case that Ahmed's indication that he may he rouse a large group of Muslim protestors to prevent the screening of 'Fitna' amounted to the gravest crime in the land:

“There appears to be prima facie evidence of an attempt ‘to intimidate or overawe both Houses or either House of Parliament’ by an ‘overt act or deed’,” he explained.

The Wardman Wire's Carl Gardner also had law on his mind – arguing that the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 have been incorrectly applied, since they refer to the conduct and not the presence of an individual. And on his own blog, Head of Legal, Gardner noted: “I've not heard any comment about this either from Liberty, or from David Davis. Why not? It's a major free speech issue.”

Of the blogs more sympathetic to the government position (and there are precious few), even The Osterley Times could not endorse Wilders' ban, though it accepted that: “...the government were probably concerned about the level of anger he might generate as he did so. So one can find many arguments for and against him being allowed entry”.

The film was screened, despite Wilders' absence.


What have we learned this week?

Much glee from Guido and Dizzy, at David Hencke's revelation that Derek Draper phrased details of his Berkeley education with what appeared to be calculated ambiguity. Draper has now set up his own personal blog to deal exclusively with the endless pisstaking. I wonder whether he was at Wellington with Lord Archer?


Around the World

Lester Ho is a Malaysian student studying in Japan. This week his blog carries photos of a protest in Shinjuku against the economic policies of prime minister Taro Aso. “Back in my country, Protesting is illegal and you need a special permit (which you hardly can obtain one from the government or police),” he writes.


Video of the Week

On Playpolitical you can watch Sky News' head to head between Lords Pearson and Ahmed.

Quote of the Week

“Without open debate, falsehood and bigotry can fester in dark nether-regions, safe from the severe scrutiny of mainstream society. Once subjected to free debate, most of the most odious ideas will wither and die.”

Stephen Farrington.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

15 comments from readers

George Laird
13 February 2009 at 14:46

Dear Paul Evans

“Thursday 12th was an unlucky day for pigfaced Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose absurd hairdo and appalling film-making skills were sent packing at Heathrow”.

Paul is it appropriate to call Geert Wilders “pigfaced”?

As to unlucky, far from it, he has done tremendously well, his “appalling” film has received a ton of free publicity. Incidentally, the appalling film The Blair Witch Project spawned a sequel so beware of crap films.

Can I ask; what does his haircut have to do with his views? Can a political debate be won at the hairdressers? Surely if that was the case; we need never talk.

“While few had any time for 'Fitna,' the crude and offensive film that Wilders was hoping to screen in the House of Lords, as a liberty-loving bunch, bloggers were almost universally dismayed by the decision to ban him from entering the UK”.

His film made be crude and it maybe offensive to some but it should be allowed to be judged on its merits. Free speech means supporting a person’s right to protest. Geert Wilders highlighted racist views of some muslims which entirely correct.

“The role of Lord Ahmed (a man who merrily hosted the European racist Jöran Jermas) in persuading the Home Office to refused him entry came under particular scrutiny”.

Double standards are the hallmark of New Labour.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Jim Jay
13 February 2009 at 17:01

I saw quite a few blogs in support of the Wilders' ban, and quite rightly. Whipping up race hate is hardly a buring torch of liberty.

Watching his film it is one of the most pig ignorant bits of trash I've ever seen, which seeks to draw a direct relationship between political extremists and all Muslims, which is like saying that all Brits are the BNP or all Americans in the KKK.

There is no evidence for this and he gives none.

The other point is that while he whines about his rights as if there is some sort of political principle at stake he is for the banning of the the Koran and the practive of Islam and expelling all Muslims from Holland - so much for freedom of movement and freedom of speech!

Jim Jay

http://jimjay.blogspot.com

BreakingWind
13 February 2009 at 23:04

There's nothing wrong with the film. It is critical and

illustrates a perfectly valid point of view - that's all...!

However, if it is deemed unlawful to air that point of

view on the assumption that the very group whose

violence it alleges are likely to respond violently, then clearly the film's allegations are largely vindicated and

all those prepared to respond violently are above

criticism...!! And the law...!!!

Paul Evans
13 February 2009 at 23:08

Dear George - no his face and haircut have nothing no bearing on his political views, I just find them amusing. Fitna is a truly appalling piece of film. I don't disagree at all that it should be judged on it's merits and like most bloggers, I wouldn't support any restrictions on screening it - but having judged it on it's merits I find it very wanting. A handful of passages from the holy texts of any Abrahamic faiths can provide justification for violence, the clumsy juxtaposition with terrorist outrages is one thing - the overlaying with clips of completely unattributed and uncontextualised radical preachers to create implicate a whole faith is another. It's pitiful. But then, so was Lord Ahmed's attempt to block it's screening.

George Laird
14 February 2009 at 13:08

Dear Paul

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

One thing I find puzzling is that New Labour claim to want to turn people away from the far right parties such as the BNP. Jacqui Smith by her actions has given this film so much publicity that the BNP will indeed benefit from it.

In abusing her position as Home Secretary; she has given oxygen that there is some sort of cover up of facts being withheld from the British people.

If Geert Wilders had turned up and no fuss was created, his film would have sunk without trace in a few weeks from the public conscience. Now, Smith has created a monster, was it worth it bury her housing expenses claim?

I think not.

As you know as a journalist, people home in on buzzwords throughout a document because it can flag up what side of the debate that person favours.

So, slightly disappointed that you start off with;

“Thursday 12th was an unlucky day for pigfaced Dutch politician Geert Wilders, whose absurd hairdo and appalling film-making skills were sent packing at Heathrow”.

It takes away from your message and dilutes it somewhat, Geert Wilders has a right to speak but let us condemn him for his propaganda view.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Marc
14 February 2009 at 14:44

Mr Wilders is the anti-fascist fighting the fascism quoted in the quran. Any one fighting him is thus a fascist!

Marc
14 February 2009 at 16:10

Mr Wilders is the anti-fascist fighting fascism such as that in the quran. Any one contraditing him is doing so in unmistakeble fascist terms! So validate your arguments before saying anything about him. Mr Wilders is not racist, fascist, far-right or anything like that. To the contrary. He is the anti-fascist fighting fascism. Mr. Wilders only resembles your English Spitfires. And you don't even recognise yourself in him. It's either time for the English to wake up or arrange their own funeral-pile.

john problem
14 February 2009 at 17:55

Enough of this 'pig-faced' nonsense. Did you see that you need a permit to protest in Japan? Does such a law exist here in Britain? It might explain why we do not take to the streets - even in the worst of all possible worlds that our leaders have given us. Are we all political wimps? Would your average Brit pay no heed to politics if the media didn't go on about it? Are we only good for a punch-up in the street rather than a good 'robust' demonstration to tell the pols they're all out of kilter? Beats me.

Paul Evans
14 February 2009 at 23:00

SOCPA does indeed require permits for protest in the vicinity of Parliament Square - a disgrace - I hope that the efforts of bloggers in seeking to challenge this will not cease,

Erik van Bommel
17 February 2009 at 03:34

George Laird is right. Describing someone as 'pigfaced' is a bit below the belt to say the least, and what does Geert Wilders' haircut have to do with his views?

Although I don't share Mr Wilders' opinions, I'm glad to see that Paul Evans has apparently changed his mind about the political significance of facial similarities.

So that leaves us with the hair.

The Dutch often refer to Mr Wilders as Mozart. Does Paul Evans also think that Mozart had an 'absurd hairdo'?

Erik van Bommel

Amsterdam, Holland

Paul Evans
17 February 2009 at 11:14

I have in no way changed my mind about the political significance of either his face or hairdo - there is none. However, I do believe that in a light-hearted review, making some reference to the physical absurdities of the manifestly ludicrous is Mr Wilders is appropriate, more so given his own predilection for drawing sweeping conclusions about others. Neglecting to mention it would be a dereliction of duty.

(Yes, I believe Mozart had a stupid hairdo as well).

George Laird
17 February 2009 at 17:49

Dear Paul

When I read your ‘defence’; I nearly burst out laughing, however given the seriousness of the subject matter, I am sure that you might pick up pundits for the comic relief.

I am sure that the Islington set might stand up in the cafes and cheer loudly.

“I have in no way changed my mind about the political significance of either his face or hairdo - there is none”.

What ever happened to those bygone days of he looks guilty?

“However, I do believe that in a light-hearted review, making some reference to the physical absurdities of the manifestly ludicrous is Mr Wilders is appropriate, more so given his own predilection for drawing sweeping conclusions about others”.

If a person looks ridiculous surely that cannot be used as an excuse or even be classed as appropriate to have a pop. When I read your reply; my first thought was that you will have no truck with this apology business.

“Neglecting to mention it would be a dereliction of duty”.

I was thought the duty of a reporter is to the truth and to be impartial but I do recognise that some may chase celebrity as well.

“(Yes, I believe Mozart had a stupid hairdo as well)”.

But he was a very trendy dresser.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Paul Evans
18 February 2009 at 00:24

Geert Wilders adopts the offensive and incendiary view that Islam amounts to little more than a monolithic religio-political ideology incompatible with liberal democracy and that it's millions of adherents can be tarred en masse by his own Islamist reading of a tiny handful of passages from faith's holy texts. He has described women in Islamic dress as "terrifying" - this is the context in which the man needs to be set. You don't need to be Lord Denning to find him guilty of gross stupidity. The fact that his physical appearance is hilarious is the sort of gift that makes me consider the existence of a deity. Po-faced Fisking is something bloggers do very well (and which I'm always happy to highlight) but in the fight against bigotry - mockery is perhaps an underrated weapon.

George Laird
18 February 2009 at 18:54

Dear Paul

“Geert Wilders adopts the offensive and incendiary view that Islam amounts to little more than a monolithic religio-political ideology incompatible with liberal democracy and that it's millions of adherents can be tarred en masse by his own Islamist reading of a tiny handful of passages from faith's holy texts”.

I would have to agree that his views are inflammatory and I am not a fan of selective quoting especially in a generalised sense.

“He has described women in Islamic dress as "terrifying" - this is the context in which the man needs to be set”.

I would say that picking a sentence and using that as a tome of the man’s character can be as dangerous as Wilders views.

“You don't need to be Lord Denning to find him guilty of gross stupidity”.

Personally; I would find gross stupidity is grounds for a defence but I take your point. I was always a fan of Denning and his views on contract law.

“The fact that his physical appearance is hilarious is the sort of gift that makes me consider the existence of a deity”.

I wouldn’t go that far myself, because his appearance is set by his genetic code, therefore I would dispute that there is some sort of godly intervention regarding looks and personality; I would argue that is a bonus.

“Po-faced Fisking is something bloggers do very well (and which I'm always happy to highlight) but in the fight against bigotry - mockery is perhaps an underrated weapon”.

I use mockery all the time myself but the most explosive weapon in the arsenal is the truth, it blows them out of the water every time.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

William
18 February 2009 at 18:58

Have noticed that whenever NuLabour is trawling behind Conservative Party in the polls it does bring up BNP in news items. Therefore any rightwing bigots that had previously defected to them during 1997 Election and subsequent Terms. Wouldn't defect back giving the Conservative Party carte blanche in the election jamboree but would delete a possible loss against themselves.

Politics don't you just love the puerile machinations of the elected representatives.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Gay pride and prejudice

03 July 2009 20:25

More corruption, more laws

26 June 2009 16:50

Mesopotamia on the mind

22 June 2009 16:14

Still the mad parliament?

12 June 2009 13:43

Will Sir Alan fire Gordon?

05 June 2009 15:58

Euro-ignorance and opportunism

01 June 2009 11:25

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker