Parlamentarul olandez Geert Wilders: „persona non grata” în Anglia

    15

    Geert Wilders, parlamentarul olandez care a produs filmul Fitna (îl puteţi vedea aici), a primit azi dimineaţă un e-mail de la ambasadorul britanic prin care a fost anunţat că este persona non grata în Marea Britanie. El fusese invitat la Casa Lorzilor de Lordul Malcolm Pearson pentru o întîlnire privată în care urma să explice motivele pentru care a făcut Fitna.
    lordul-nazir
    Ambasadorul i-a spus lui Geert Wilders că prezenţa lui în Marea Britanie e un risc pentru securitatea publică, din cauza controversei create de Fitna. Wilders intenţionează să se ducă oricum: „Lasă-i să mă aresteze în Heathrow!”

    Întîlnirea dintre Wilders şi membrii parlamentului britanic a fost programată pentru 29 ianuarie, dar a fost amînată din cauza Lordul Nazir Ahmed, un membru musulman al Casei Lorzilor(din partea Laburiştilor), care a ameninţat că va mobiliza 10.000 de musulmani pentru a-l împiedica pe deputatul olandez sa intre în parlamentul britanic.

    Iar englezii nu au nici un motiv să nu il creadă pe cuvînt pe Lordul Ahmed:


    Police ‘ran away’ from jeering Gaza demonstrators

    Wilders a declarat:

    Cred că ma voi duce. Vom vedea dacă mă arestează sau nu. Trebuie să mă mai gîndesc, dar aici este vorba de libertatea de exprimare. Sînt invitat de membrii ai parlamentului. Este incredibil şi disproporţionat.

    Baron Bodissey de la Gates of Vienna comentează:

    Avem iluzia că sîntem liberi – ne uităm prin gard la bieţii oameni înfometaţi din lumea a treia şi le plîngem de milă pentru lipsa lor de libertate.

    Dar libertatea noastră e iluzorie, aşa cum evenimentele de azi ne arată foarte clar.

    Geert Wilders a sărit gardul, iar acum cîinii s-au năpustit spre el.

    Vedeţi şi:
    Fitna
    Geert Wilders: Persona Non Grata in the UK
    Geert Wilders – Omul Anului 2008
    Geert Wilders: Om în afara timpurilor
    Disecţia unei acuzări (1)

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    15 COMENTARII

    1. Tărăşenia asta a escalat într-un incident diplomatic. Maxime Verhagen, ministrul de externe olandez, e dezamăgit de decizia britanică:

      Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, said he had called Mr Milliband to say that Holland was „deeply upset and disappointed” by Britain’s refusal to allow entry to a Dutch Parliamentarian „from a fellow EC Country”.

      Jacqui Smith’s ban on anti-Muslim Dutch MP triggers diplomatic row with Holland

      În scrisoarea pe care madam Home Secretary i-a trimis-o lui Wilders pentru a-l înştiinţa că guvernul britanic nu îi acordă viza de intrare, se găseşte şi exprimarea asta:

      „Your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society…
      [The Home Office] is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.”

      E bine de ştiut că anul trecut, aceeaşi madam Home Office a dat cu plăcere viza de intrare lui Ibrahim Mousawi, purtătorul de cuvînt al organizaţiei teroriste Hezbollah din Liban. Mousawi, evident, nu este „o ameninţare serioasă la adresa intereselor fundamentale ale societăţii britanice” şi prezenţa sa a fost un balsam pentru „armonia comunitară” şi „siguranţa publică”.

      Uite aşa, din comparaţia între Wilder şi Mousawi, devine uşor de înţeles care sînt interesele fundamentale ale societăţii britanice… în mintea laburiştilor, la putere de mai bine de 10 ani.

    2. Groaznic, mi se pare ca vizionez un film urat.
      Cred ca situatia e demult scapata de sub control, de cand UK a acordat cetatenie celor care dau atata bataie de cap. Si cum de au acordat cetatenia, ma refer la toata Europa, stiind mediul in care au fost indoctrinati musulmanii, cat de legat la ochi sa fii incat sa ignori realitatea si sa joci ruleta ruseasca acordand in dreapta si stanga cetatenia??
      Stiti proverbul „boala lunga, moarte sigura”?
      Asa este si cu musulmanii, atat ne facem ca nu vedem ceea ce sunt pana cand ne vom taia singuri craca de sub picioare.
      Totusi nu reusesc sa imi explic de ce se intampla ceea ce se intampla, adica c’mon on, in afara de Wilder nu mai exista nici un politician realist?
      Mie imi e rusine de problemele pe care le lasam mostenire generatie viitoare.

    3. Discursul pe care intentiona sa-l tina Wilders daca nu ar fi fost alungat in mod las si rusinos din tara aia, cum o cheama? aia de dadu omenirii Magna Carta in 1215, cind Richard Inima de Leu se razboia cu pasnicii reprezentanti ai religiei pacii:

      Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

      Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.

      This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

      The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

      In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

      What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

      Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

      Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

      There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

      Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, are longing for that submission.

      We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

      Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.

      For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

      Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

      But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

      I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of Islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

      You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all its calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?

      Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

      I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

      The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

      Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

      We have to defend freedom of speech.

      For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

      What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

      The choice is ours.

      Ladies and gentlemen,

      We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

      Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

      Thank you very much.

      Geert Wilders MP
      Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
      The Netherlands

      prin solomonia

    4. S-a terminat cu libertatea noastra de alegere…curand trebuie imi pregatesc burqa daca vreau sa imi pastrez viata si biciul cu care sa fiu pedepsita eventual sa las testament dimensiunile pietrelor cu care doresc sa fiu ucisa de profesionistii islamului

    5. Panseluta, esti o „idealista”, in sensul bun al cuvintului (pentru ca in spirit pur orwell-iano contemporan fiecare cuvint, inclusiv „idealist” are cel putin doua intelesuri opuse), ca si Wilders care ii felicita pe englezi inainte de a stii sigur daca intra sau nu in UK. Oricum, cam ce crede Anglia televizata (ignorati sigla celor de la BNP, secventa e in intregime de la BBC):

    6. costin

      of of, n-o sa pot sa scriu decit foarte putin aici, pe apucate. Mi-am instalat DSL cu Verizon, dar nu mi-a sosit computerul nou, si asta vechi n-are capacitate ethernet. Am pus caruta inaintea boilor. Serverul meu vechi de Net are hachite azi, ma intrerupe la fiecare 5 minute.

      Am citit, intre timp, ce-a scris Wilders despre interzicerea Coranului. Probabil ca a urmarit o aplicare consistenta a legii olandeze (desi n-o spune clar): daca Mein Kampf e interzisa, atunci si Coranul trebuie interzis, din aceleasi motive.
      Ceea ce nu se va intimpla: Mein Kampf e un bau-bau istoric fara relevanta actuala, menit sa asigure o spalare a constiintei publice olandeze de pacatele trecutului. Coranul e foarte prezent, la epicentrul constiintei unei parti insemnate a populatiei musulmane olandeze in crestere.

      Olandezii n-au cum sa interzica Coranul fara sa riste o masiva opozitie violenta. Sunt legati de miini si de picioare, si si-au facut-o cu mina lor.

      E posibil ca Wilders sa-si fi dorit, prin pronuntarile socante, sa-i trezeasca pe olandezi la realitate. Cred ca reusita e minima, pentru ca foarte multi olandezi sunt investiti in pastrarea status quo-ului care genereaza o multime de slujbe si o multime de bani. Politia ideologica asigura un trai bun milioanelor de birocrati peste tot in lume. Statul modern socialist, urias in ramificatiile sale, traieste oricum din reglementarea „soft” a vietii cetatenilor productivi prin invocarea „drepturilor” minoritare si crearea abuziva de noi si noi „drepturi”.
      Pe scurt, a le cere olandezilor sa aplice consistent legea–sau sa renunte la ea ca absurda si opusa valorilor Occidentului–e a le lua multora piinea de la gura.

    7. Panseluta,
      sint de acord cu tine ca ideea lui Wilders e cam absurda dar ii dau un pic de credit, pentru ca din ce am vazut nu e prost. poate doreste intradevar interzicerea coranului, poate vrea doar sa socheze si in felul asta sa faca lumea sa doreasca sa inteleaga mai mult din ce spune intradevar cartea asta. Dar vis a vis de interdictie, ce zice wilders despre coran are importnata pasagera si creeaza un precedent foarte serios si trist.

    8. Buna, Madalina! Bine ai venit pe la noI! Nu dispera inca. Ne indreptam spre prapastie, cu viteza maxima, dar nu stie niciodata ce se poate intampla. Vorba contelui de Monte Cristo, „asteapta si nadajduieste!” 😀 Te mai asteptam pe la noi.

      Costin > Wilders o fi zis ca daca tot nu exista libertate de exprimare, macar legea sa fie dura pentru toti. Afirmand ca si Coranul incalca legea, dai mai multe lovituri: atragi atentia asupra violentei promovate de Mahomed si ii obligi pe oficiali sa ia atitudine. Problema e ca politicienii sunt blindati la critica de genul asta; frica de musulmani este atat de mare, incat nici nu se poate pune problema interzicerii Coranului. Olandezii nu stiu cum sa ii mai tempereze pe musulmani, infurierea lor e ultimul lucru pe care si-l doresc. Impresia mea e ca au ajuns intr-atat de lasi, incat nu s-ar apara nici daca ar ajunge intr-un colt.

      In ceea ce ii priveste pe britanici, interdictia „acordata” lui Wilders vine in lungul sir al masurilor luate de frica muslimilor. Sa nu uitam ca aia e tara unde liderul bisericii oficiale a statului (Biserica anglicana) a pledat in favoarea introducerii shariah. :mrgreen:

    9. costin:

      N-am spus ca ideea lui Wilders e absurda (de unde ai scos-o?) Am spus ca e imposibila in contextul actual, ca si ideea eliminarii preferintelor ideologice in materie de „hate speech” (nazistii ba, Islamul da), idee perfect rationala.

      Idem, n-am sugerat nici un moment ca Wilders ar fi prost, Doamne fereste. Poti sa-i reprosezi multe–ca e diva, ca e egolatru, ca face ce face pentru publicitate personala, asa cum citesc in presa conservatoare–dar nimeni nu zice ca e prost.

    10. Paseluta,
      eu cred ca e cam absurda si exagerata ideea lui de a interzice coranul, nu am zis ca tu ai crede asta. poate are o logica avind in vedere ca mein kampf e interzisa, dat tot exagerata mi se pare si interzicerea coranului. astfel ar cistiga in respectabilitate. cred ca olandezii au interzis mein kampf pt ca 95% dintre evreii lor au fost ucisi in timpul nazismului. astfel si interzicerea coranului ar avea o logica pentru ei. o logica inexistenta in anglia.

    11. costin,

      cum am zis, si cum a scris si Imperialistu, ideea de interzicere a Coranului in sistemul legal al Olandei nu e „absurda”; dimpotriva, e coerenta cu sistemul, dar e impracticabila.
      Sistemul olandez insusi e prost tocmit. Nu e echivalent „absurdului”. (By the way, ideile incorporate in legile societatilor democratice se bat frecvent cap in cap, pentru ca exprima interesele diverse si contradictorii ale cetatenilor. Doar ideologiile totalitare sunt, aparent, perfect coerente). Totul, in lege, trebuie judecat in contextul legal suprem al unei Constitutii.
      Nu stiu ce zice Constitutia Olandei. Banuiesc ca apara interesul national si integritatea legala si culturala a tarii.
      Banuiesc ca e impotriva interesului national olandez conform Constitutiei tarii sa lasi judecatori aserviti sistemului sa faca legi noi (legile sunt apartenenta bransei legislative, Parlamentul, nu celei judiciare) bazate pe interesul de grup profesional sub acoperirea vinei unei generatii trecute si rasuflate fata de evrei….in timp ce aceeasi clasa ignora un pericol totalitar–fascisto-Islamismul–cit se poate de real, cit se poate de prezent–care le da papica.

    12. Panseluta,
      Uite ce motive da cineva care crede ca ar trebui interzis coranul, interesant si oarecum rezonabil:

      I support banning the Koran
      by Robert Marchenoir

      Freedom of speech is all right in peaceful times. Not when there is a war going on.

      When a war is being waged against your country, propaganda for the enemy is forbidden. It is a condition of victory. We have to come to terms with the fact that war has been foisted upon us. The strategy to oppose it is entirely different from what would apply in normal times.

      The first positive effect that would come from banning the Koran — even from campaigning for its banning — would be to force people to examine the motives; to make them realise that, yes, the situation is that threatening.

      The other positive effect would be the disproportionate anger and violence that is certain to arise in Muslim circles, if such a possibility was seriously entertained.

      Many people think the Koran is just another book, or just another religious text, or just another expression of one’s opinion. It is not. It is a casus belli from the Muslim standpoint, as are any goalposts that Muslims will gladly plant and move forward, in their strategy of conquest of kuffar territory.
      – – – – – – – – –
      It is essential that we, Westerners, understand that political trick. Many illusions would crumble if faced with the extreme character of the symbolic and actual violence that Muslims would try to inflict on us if we took such a step.

      A comparison with Mein Kampf is largely irrelevant. Certainly, if Mein Kampf is banned, as it is in the Netherlands, then it is legitimate to ask, even in a rhetorical way like Geert Wilders, why the Koran is not.

      However, Mein Kampf is not a present threat. The Koran is. Indeed, the rational thing for Western governments to do would be to lift the ban on Mein Kampf, for their citizens to see what sort of thinking has lead to a political regime most people now hate and despise, and ban the Koran, in order to prevent the enemy of today from wreaking havoc.

      The only problem that would arise from such a situation is that there would be a good chance of Islamists switching to Mein Kampf to further their ideals, as “Heil Hitler!” cries have shown in the recent anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe.

      I believe most Western governments have provisions in their laws which forbid propaganda by political movements whose aim is to subvert and overthrow, by violent means, the fundamental constitutional principles on which their countries are built.

      The Koran is such a piece of propaganda. It is a political and military book, masquerading under the guise of a religious text. The Trojan Horse quality of such a ruse of war is potentially very effective, given the state of denial Europe is in regarding military conflict and the use of force. It is essential the West fight against it.

      The former Swiss counterjihad blogger Alain-Jean Mairet has long argued powerfully for a campaign to ban the Koran, and even Islam. In many Western countries you would be arrested if you flaunted a flag with a swastika in the street. Similarly, there is no reason why you should be allowed to wear a Muslim veil in public, build mosques or disseminate the Koran.

      Let’s ban the Koran while we still can.
      I Support Banning the Koran

    13. Ideea de a interzice Coranul mi se pare o prostie monumentala. Ideile se combat, nu se interzic. Dimpotriva, Coranul trebuie cunoscut cit mai bine si de citi mai multi; istoria islamica trebuie cunoscuta, particularitatile ideologiilor islamice izvorite din Coran, deosebirile fundamentale dintre ideile corpului teologic islamic si crestinate sau iudaism. E o aiureala si in alt sens. Ce faci cu alta sursa importanta a islamului, Zicerile Profetului sau Hadiths, sau cu lucrarile de jurisprudenta islamica? Ar trebui si ele interzise.

      Cind ai un adversar il tii in lumina, nu il ajuti trimitindu-l in subteran, de unde va continua sa lucreze impotriva ta, dar fara stirea ta. Ce ne omoara pe noi este ignoranta, nu ideile din Coran. Acestora le putem face fata fara probleme, cu conditia sa gasim la nivel de societate determinarea colectiva de a le analiza nestinjeniti de tabuurile instituite de mass-media, birocrati si politicieni.

      Iar cu discutiile despre Coran ce facem, le interzicem si pe ele? Pentru ca odata cu interzicerea Coranului acesta ar fi un pas urmator logic. Cum poti dezbate ceva cind obiectul dezbaterii este interzis? Ar fi culmea absurdului.

      Sintem intr-un razboi de idei. Aici se dau bataliile hotaritoare, cele care determina soarta noastra ca civilizatie. In acest razboi nu poti sa interzici adversarul, la fel cum intr-un razboi conventional nu poti sa inchizi ochii si sa iti spui „gata, inamicul nu mai exista”. L-am interzis. Nu sesizeaza nimeni aberatia situatiei?

    LĂSAȚI UN MESAJ

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here