SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - British dhimmitude delivers blow to free thought and free speech in the EU

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - British dhimmitude delivers blow to free thought and free speech in the EU (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148094)

Sorry, HT, I just realised that you linked good ol' Pat before me.

The House of Lords Speech: What Wilders Would Have Said If Britain Allowed Free Speec

Quote:

Below is the text of the address that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was invited to deliver at the House of Lords on Thursday, February 12, 2009. Instead of making this address and showing his film Fitna, he was detained by UK immigration officials on his arrival at London Heathrow airport and sent back to the Netherlands as a risk to “public security.”

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna [see it here], 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 your 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 built 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, is 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 Appeals 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 it’s 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 trail.

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

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3796

Quote:

How is unmasking a totalitarian ideology at the risk of his own life a threat?

Wow thats a hard one .
Lets see how to put it in simple terms that you might just be able to grasp if you try and think just a little without your phobia getting in the way.
If the stated intention is to provoke a violent reaction then it is a threat to provoke violence .
Is that too complicated for you to understand ?

Quote:

If they attacked you, they would be charged, not you.

Wrong . I would be liable to prosecution for undertaking an action that is likely to cause a breach of the peace . Your balls are clearly no substitute for brains are they

Quote:

I dont think anyone, but you, missed Lord Ahmeds threats.

What threats ?
He said he would organise a mass protest outside parliament :rotfl:
Though of course he would have a problem with that as British law was changed to attempt to deal with a single protester outside parliament so if lord Ahmed wanted to organise a mass protest there he would first have to give notice of his intentions , then complete all the paperwork detailing how many people were going to attend , what they would be saying , how many banners would be dislayed , how big the banners would be ,what the banners would have written on them , how long the protest would last and where exactly outside parliament he would like his protest resricted too ....then if he actually got approval he could have held his protest without being arrested for offences under breach of public order .

Quote:

Sorry, HT, I just realised that you linked good ol' Pat before me.

Good old Pat , he was a lot funnier when he was more active on the circuit , though at least he is still a real comedian while Wilders is just a joke .

Quote:

How is unmasking a totalitarian ideology at the risk of his own life a threat?

I dont have any irrational fears, i have concerns based on facts.
Were has Wilders said he wanted to provoke violent reactions?
The Danish cartoons prove, that you really dont need much, to get a violent reaction from the muslims.
Dont you feel this is the REAL problem, not some short film or a cartoon?
If not, it is you with irrational concerns that i have a problem to understand.

Quote:

If they attacked you, they would be charged, not you.

Wrong . I would be liable to prosecution for undertaking an action that is likely to cause a breach of the peace . Your balls are clearly no substitute for brains are they

Prove it, i call BS.

Quote:

I dont think anyone, but you, missed Lord Ahmeds threats.

Just like they did it last time.

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles...go.to.hell.jpg

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles...go.to.hell.jpg

I like this pic (I take it's about the "american freedom").

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles...go.to.hell.jpg

I like this pic (I take it's about the "american freedom").

Yes, and ours also, America has more freedom than most European countries, including Finland.

Quote:

Prove it, i call BS.

You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about .
So which British laws about public order and breach of the peace is it that you don't understand ?
Going on what you have written I would say it is a pretty safe bet to say that you understand none of them whatsoever .
Tell you what , when you find the relevant laws in the Criminal justice and public order acts you can go down to section 155 of the latest version and see the law that makes Wilders visit somewhat difficult .

Quote:

Just like they did it last time.

Wow your ignorance knows no limits .
Where was that protest held ?
Where did lord Ahmed say he was going to have his demonstration ?
What are the differences between the two ?
Which laws apply to one but not the other ?
It really is very simple stuff , but it does seem quite beyond your mental abilities .

Quote:

Were has Wilders said he wanted to provoke violent reactions?

That was on his interview with BBC newstalk prior to the release of his film .

Quote:

The Danish cartoons prove, that you really dont need much, to get a violent reaction from the muslims.

Actually they proved that you do need to do lots .
What was the reaction when they were published ?
Pretty much nothing wasn't it , a few letters of protest and couple of idiots doing little demonstrations .
What was the reaction after a lengthy tour to gather opposition includuing a massive propoganda campaign , heaps of false information , a selection of cartoons which had never been published and the use of pictures that had nothing to do with the subject in the slightest ?

But I suppoose the real irony there is the reaction of the cartoonists to Wilders , they don't want their cartoons associated with his piece of crap do they :rotfl:

Quote:

Prove it, i call BS.

I checked that your breach of peace BS is regarded as legally superfluous.
I bet i can call Pope a poof freely but calling Muhammed a pedofile and genociding psychopath he was, would probably take me to jail. Starting the laywer talk doesnt increase your credibility btw.:rotfl:

Quote:

Just like they did it last time.

Lord Ahmed threatened he would mobilise 10.000 muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the parlament. So they would have had to be there on Wilders arrival. And where did he say he was going to even give a formal notice.
You really should be concerned of your own mental abilities, you border on retarded.

Quote:

Were has Wilders said he wanted to provoke violent reactions?

That was on his interview with BBC newstalk prior to the release of his film .

First ive heard, ive seen the hard talk interwiew. Could be your BS again.

Quote:

The Danish cartoons prove, that you really dont need much, to get a violent reaction from the muslims.

I dont think the reaction was acceptable or normal, even if they would have been shown a picture of Muhammed facking a pig in top of the Kaaba.

You should emigrate to Saudi Arabia, retarded laws are the rule there.:yeah:

I have to mostly ingnore you, not trough forum tools but otherwise.
Your stupity makes my blood boil, please dont reprocriate, ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles...go.to.hell.jpg

I like this pic (I take it's about the "american freedom").

I take it it's more along this line of "reasoning":

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/ima...slims/holo.jpg

http://contradicere.files.wordpress....ess_hitler.jpg

But let's blame America, makes us look more manly and original, no?

Im happy to see that signatures in the petition on behalf of Wilders are growing at a rate of thousands per day. They are coming all over the world and makes me happy to see so many Finnish people signing it. You cand find it as my sic.:salute:

Quote:

I checked that your breach of peace BS is regarded as legally superfluous.

It is still the law so it is not BS .

Quote:

You demonstrate your ignorance again , you cannot gather near parliament without permission , under the new laws a single person can now count as an illegal gathering and be liable to arrest . And needless to say (though maybe it should be said as you really havn't a clue) any attempt by a protest to prevent access even if permission for the protest had been granted would leave them liable to arrest and prosecution for obtruction , in fact such an action would give the police the ability to use the dispersal order once the demonstration had breached its permitted actions ...and of course they coulduse that great old chestnut you call superfluous which is actions likely to cause a breach of the peace .

Quote:

First ive heard

Well since you find Geert Admirable then you really should listen to the crap he talks more often .

Quote:

I dont think the reaction was acceptable or normal

Who said it was ?
But it was a reaction that people had to work really hard to make happen wasn't it .

Quote:

You should emigrate to Saudi Arabia,

Is that the new version of the idiots "why don't you move to Russia" that is used when their arguements fall apart ?

Quote:

Your stupity makes my blood boil

Says someone who has not only demonstrated their ignorance of the subject but who linked to a real font of stupidity like jihadwatch:rotfl:

Quote:

I checked that your breach of peace BS is regarded as legally superfluous.

It is still the law so it is not BS .

Its legal talk for it is BS.

Quote:

Dont you get it by now, that the illegal riot with arrests and fighting, was what Lord Ahmed threatened with and what British Goverment was scared of.:damn:

Quote:

First ive heard

Well since you find Geert Admirable then you really should listen to the crap he talks more often .

So can you link me to some source about Wilders wish to provoke violence? Im sure media must have noted that.

Quote:

I dont think the reaction was acceptable or normal

Who said it was ?
But it was a reaction that people had to work really hard to make happen wasn't it .

Not very hard, fact is they had large scale violance because of cartoons.

Quote:

You should emigrate to Saudi Arabia,

Is that the new version of the idiots "why don't you move to Russia" that is used when their arguements fall apart ?

Its your arguments that fell apart. I thought that you would fit better in SA with your wiews of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Your stupity makes my blood boil

Says someone who has not only demonstrated their ignorance of the subject but who linked to a real font of stupidity like jihadwatch:rotfl:

Here i can quote Robert Spencer who runs the site Jihad Watch.

Quote:

I present the work not on the basis of my credentials, but on the basis of the evidence I bring forth; evaluate it for yourself. One example: after I spoke at the University of North Carolina, Professor Carl Ernst of the university wrote a piece about me warning that my books were non-scholarly and were published by presses that he believed reflected a political agenda of which he did not approve. That kind of approach may impress some people, but Carl Ernst did not and cannot bring forth even a single example of a supposed inaccuracy in my work. I would, of course, be happy to debate Carl Ernst or any other scholar of Islam about Islam and jihad; this is a standing invitation.

Quote:

Its legal talk for it is BS.

The law of the land is the law of the land, the fact that you think it is B/S does not alter the fact does it .

Quote:

Dont you get it by now, that the illegal riot with arrests and fighting, was what Lord Ahmed threatened with and what British Goverment was scared of.:damn:

What threats ? don't you understand British law at all do you ?
OK fair enough you have demonstrated relativly in bloody BIG LETTERS for everyone to see that when it comes to British law you are completely clueless .

So now Mr Happy times could you perhaps write something on any given subject where you are not such an absolute clueless muppet ?

Quote:

Not very hard, fact is they had large scale violance because of cartoons.

Did you read what I wrote ? OK going by what has been presented maybe reading and comprehension are far beyond your abilities

Now for those that might be slightly confused .
I thoroughly disagree with the recent British public order or criminal justice bills .Be it from the earleist Thatcherite manifestations attempting to dealwith miners/dockers /watchmakers/railwaymen ...or hippies or ravers.
However for simplicity
The law has been put in place ,if you want to object to the law fair enough .
I f you want to object to the law because your particular flavour of bul**** does't meet the threshold then tough excrement unless you can make a case.
So Happy Times , you are really slacking ....would you like to present a case that might stand up to a moments scrutiny ?