Wilders may take Home Secretary to The Hague for “blatant discrimination”!


PLEASE NOTE: The content of this blog and opinions expressed here or pointed to are all my choice and mine alone. In particular, the controversial postings on the present Wilders/Islam issues imply NO reference whatsoever to Tony Blair’s opinions on Islam. (This note is a result of an e-mail I received from a well-respected online friend and commenter, expressing concern that the title of my blog [Tony Blair] might lead some to incorrect conclusions, or even to weaken Mr Blair’s position on interfaith dialogue. That is NOT, repeat NOT my intention or desire.)

Comment at end

13th February, 2009


He’s an accessory, if not the actual Mastermind behind this most unEuropean of Bans

On second thoughts they’d be unlikely to let him into the Netherlands.  He’d probably be considered a ‘threat to society’ with his antiquated views on “Freedom of Speech”.   Hhmm …

Dear Mr Wilders,

Excellent news! Good for you, Freedom Fighter.  Just what I was hoping you’d do.

Turn the tables on the little civil righters, and go get the British government. Pity it’s only the message girl, Ms Smith, you’re pursuing. Can’t you go for Mr Brown too, he of the cowardly lionheart?

With a bit of luck you might even find Shami Chakrabarti of ‘Liberty’ begging to hold your hand, gazing intently into your eyes and telling you that the bullies in the wicked system won’t get you – not if SHE can help it. That’s what she’s there for, after all – to protect the weak and oppressed, the victimised and those side-lined by authority … and so on, and so forth …

What do you mean you’re too European?

What a thing to suggest … tch … tch … as if.

But if you, dear reader, ever needed proof that this failing government’s right hand doesn’t know what its left hand is up to, read this part of the below:

A Home Office spokesman said: “The European Free Movement Directive requires us to review the exclusion within three years.

“Those excluded can seek to overturn the decision at an Asylum Immigration Tribunal.”

Er… pardon? Mr Wilders did not want asylum here.  He’s not THAT daft.  And in any case there is NO chance he is about to wait for three more years to get in.  By then all ports could be barred to dyed blonds!

Dutch MP Geert Wilders is “seriously considering” taking steps to sue Jacqui Smith over her decision to ban the controversial film-maker from the UK  (Telegraph)

By Joan Clements in the Hague and Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Last Updated: 2:15PM GMT 13 Feb 2009

The legal action would have the backing of the Dutch Government, in a move which could aggravate the diplomatic row over the ban between London and Amsterdam.

Mr Wilders said he was looking to take legal action against the Home Secretary for “blatant discrimination” in the High Court or International Court in the Hague.

The Dutch Politician and film maker was sent back to Holland on Thursday night after trying to enter Britain to show his anti Muslim film Fitna in the House of Lords.

Mr Wilders had been invited to Westminster by Ukip peer Lord Pearson to show his 17 minute film Fitna, which criticises the Koran as a “facist book”.

Mr Wilders is being encouraged to sue the Government by Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister who is still furious with the Home Office’s decision.

He said he would back Wilders in a possible decision to bring a case against the British Government’s “disgraceful decision”.

Mr Verhagen said: “Everybody, but especially a Parliamentarian from a European Union member country, has the right to freedom of speech.”

In the film Mr Wilders, whose Freedom Party holds nine of the 120 seats in the Dutch Parliament made the film Fitna, juxtaposes images of the Koran with footage of the 9/11 twin tours attacks and other terrorist atrocities.

It was screened to a small audience in the House of Lords on Thursday afternoon by Lord Pearson, a Ukip peer, and Baroness Cox, a cross bencher, despite Mr Wilders’ absence.

The matter could be raised as soon as next week at the European Parliament.

Thijs Berman, a Dutch EU Socialist Parliamentarian, said he will discuss the case during Tuesday’s socialist EU Parliamentarians meeting in Brussels.

He said he was keen to obtain an “official rebuke” to Britain because the country had made a “totally wrong decision” by banning Mr Wilders.

He said: “We fought four wars against Britain and Mr Wilder’s case will certainly not bring us to starting another one, but Freedom of Speech must be defended.

“Politicians must be allowed to do their work” he continued, ” and EU member’s states are all democratic countries and allowing Mr Wilders to enter Britain would have strengthened democracy within the EU.”

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, refused Mr Wilders entry because his opinions “would threaten community security and therefore public security”.

A Home Office spokesman said: “The European Free Movement Directive requires us to review the exclusion within three years.

“Those excluded can seek to overturn the decision at an Asylum Immigration Tribunal.”


Free Hit Counter


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Wilders may take Home Secretary to The Hague for “blatant discrimination”!”

  1. Arlene Says:

    This is just nuts! Your Home Office has made a terrible mistake. If Wilders had written a book instead of making the film, would the book have been banned in Britain? Is book burning next? Insane Asylums?
    Shame, shame, shame on the Home Office. PM Brown should overturn this rotten decision before Wilders has a chance to bring it to court. Viva La Freedom of Speech!

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      I was listening to the Radio 4 Any Questions programme today, and I was pleasantly surprised. Most of their audiences and speakers too are usually SO left wing these days. But one government minister (all right he was a Blairite) disagreed with the government’s decision on this. He also described Wilders in the rudest terms, but I’ll let that one go.

      And the Lib Dem MP disagreed with Chris Huhne who had said it was right to send him back.

      Can’t recall the Conservative – couldn’t have said much – in the usual Tory dhimmi way over this.

      In the straw audience poll only ONE person thought Wilders should have been sent back.

      Now THAT’S what I call progress.

  2. Arlene Says:

    If the British government wanted to promote peace and stability in the streets, they might want to consider showing Fitna on the BBC and then holding an open debate immediately following the film. Wilders and a prominent Muslim Cleric would debate each Surah (verse) that is referred to in the film. It would not only be educational, it would be FAIR. I believe it would attract a lot of attention and the British would look again like their fair and balanced selves. To simply have Wilders say he is right and the Muslim response saying he is wrong isn’t solving anything. I say bring it out in the open, discuss it, debate it, but do NOT hide it under the covers. That is ignorance.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      The BBC?! They’ve only just got around to noticing Fitna and it’s been around for well over a year. Too busy noticing the evil west and Israelis. Now that three of its figureheads, Olmert, Bush and Blair have gone (more or less) they have no excuses right now for not taking a wider investigative stance.

      Bush is no longer “telling” Blair what to do, and Olmert is no longer “telling” either of the other two. (Their usual World Order Conspiracy excuse.)

      The BBC will, I foresee, now get their fingers out and have to look at this seriously.

      Plenty of people are not happy, including the loony left, if only over Free Speech being snatched out of their mouths, like food from a baby.

  3. Caela Says:

    Is the Brown government seriously not alarmed by the implications of this event in its EU relations? Of course, the Netherlands could have decided to recall its ambassador or to suspend diplomatic relations. But those are far-reaching steps and as Gerdi Verbeet had earlier said, Wilders is not worth a new war with Britain.

    But seriously, does he REALLY want UK out of the EU that much?

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:


      It’s more than disappointing that they thought it was all right to behave like this in the first place – which was bad enough! But if they are NOT worried about this court possibility, they have all gone round the bend.

      It could have serious repercussions for ALL of us.

      Wonder if and when the mainstream press will start to think in those terms? Only if Wilders actually DOES try to press this charge, probably. I understand it could be THIS week, so we may not have to wait long.

      I am SURE it would never have happened under Blair. Goes completely against his principles of Free Speech, and his Europeanism.

      Apart from that Blair could have defused civil unrest with his silver tongue.

      Brown scores low in all three of the above.

      As for wanting to get out of the EU, well, I don’t think that desire is behind it. I just think he is honestly afraid of social unrest, with the weirdos we have screaming and shouting in what they disingenuously refer to as ‘Free Gaza’ support/demonstrations.

      But it wont have made Brown any friends in the rest of the EU. It shouldn’t affect Blair’s bid, (if it exists), to become EU President, though. In fact it might strengthen his hand, for several reasons I can think of.

      There are elements afoot here in Britain that turn up at every demo with no concern for the issues, but as fully paid-up agitators.

      Brown is out of his depth.

  4. Caela Says:


    I agree with the points you raised. It’s interesting that you mentioned Tony Blair. Yes, had this happened under him this would surely have been handled differently. In fact, given his stand on faith, i would say that he will probably encourage (or at least ensure) that Mr. Wilders’ views be placed on the table for debate and serious discussion.

    I think the Home Office’s handling of this affair blew things out of proportions. Had there been no ban, Wilders’ appearance at the House of Lords would probably not even make the headlines. And there shouldn’t have been such actions since Verhagen had earlier called Milliband to express his displeasure when the initial ban was reported. And Verbeet wrote a letter to both houses of the British parliament to do everything in their power to allow his entry. Given all the diplomatic channels they went through, Amsterdam had been very patient with London.

    My comment about leaving the EU is, of course, sarcastic. Leaving the EU is political, if not economic, suicide. No matter what they say, it’s not on Britain’s best interest to leave the union (it’s downright impossible with the current economic crisis). Nonetheless, I’m willing to bet that Brussels is very disappointed with London. (Tsk. Tsk. Looks like PM Brown is losing the points he scored for signing the Lisbon Treaty.)

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:


      “The points he scored … Lisbon Treaty”?

      The points were reluctantly given, as was his signing, when he finally got there. All choreographed, imho, to show that he himself was reluctant, as were the British people, we are constantly told.

      Brown had not permitted the referendum on the decision, promised by Blair, because he said it wasn’t a new treaty but just the old one with a few amendments. But in his late arrival to sign he wanted to imply that it was a fait accompli tied up by Blair in his last couple of months in Number 10, and he had been more or less coerced into it. (Not true, but Brown was trying to appear at arms length from the whole procedure, and to pass the ‘blame’ to his predecessor, even though he and Blair made numerous phone calls as Blair worked to get Britain’s “red lines” – bottom line – agreements out of the EU.

      As a pro-European I was happy with the absence of a referendum. I’m there in principle anyway, and there needs to be compromise.

      And I also know that people here would not have been voting for the treaty or amendments but for the principle of EU membership. The press and anti-EU types would have seen to that.

      As for the Wilders thing, the main reason I do not think that Blair would have banned Wilders is because it is so outwith the spirit of open EU borders AND that he would have been accused of stifling free speech … AGAIN.

      It just doesn’t seem to me a very Blairite thing to do.

      The religion thing – out in the open angle – I’m not so sure. That, if it ever happens, is going to open a can of worms. Blair would have known that too, and he is still suffering from the lies told by some that he was anti-Muslim. He is certainly not that. But it’s an easy tale to spread by his opponents … enemies after the Middle East wars, and his seeming empathy with Israel over Lebanon in summer 2006. They ignore how he saved thousands of Muslims from Christians in Kosovo.

      I think police/security forces may also have had some input into the dangers of riots in shaping Brown’s decision on Wilders.

      But as you say, Wilders has had more publicity than he would have had if they’d just let him in.

      Many still refer to him and his opinions as “vile”. Not quite as “vile”, if you ask me, as the murder of his fellow MP and Van Gogh in his country’s streets.

  5. Caela Says:

    I just can’t believe that this happened in Britain. For years, Britain’s free speech had been its validation of respect and the envy of the world. Extremist and Radicals from all over the world used to find asylum in London. Russians, Chechens, Algerians, but also radical Islamic groups were able to settle there. Karl Marx fled there from Paris.

    And as with Brown, he did score some cookie points when Sarkozy called him “courageous” but I don’t think anyone would call him that any time soon when his spineless government completely and single-handedly undermined diplomatic EU relations. (He just never gets anything, right these days does he? And obviously I just couldn’t let go of the EU thing.)

    As with Wilders, I think that if you dig deeper than what the media says, i think he is a quite credible person. And I completely agree with my friend silent sinner’s view of the film. (http://aquarter.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/fitna-a-review/)

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Hey, Caela,

      Didn’t realise you had a blog! Is it new? I’ll comment there later.


      Free Speech is presently DEAD in Britain – unless you are a radical Islamicist extremist.

      I think the Wilders video is OK, personally. It tells the truth. All of these ranting barbarians were quoting from the Koran and justifying killing unbelievers because of the Koran. But I am perfectly happy for others to argue that that signifies nothing. And then PROVE it by disowning the nasty parts (as Christians do of the Old Testament). They must also disown EVERY murdering barbarian.

      But they won’t … because they CAN’T.

      Not permitted.

      Where? Well in the Koran, of course!

      All too uncomfortable for Brown to deal with. For that it needs a REAL politician.

  6. Caela Says:

    Yup it’s new. It’s a shared blog started by silent sinner, we’re trying to get more people to contribute. (tell me if you’re interested) ^_^

    This settles it that Brown has no political backbone at all. We probably wouldn’t be talking about this if Blair is still PM. It would’ve probably gone unnoticed. (The Home Office need not have been this publicly involved. In fact, it shouldn’t have been.)

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Great stuff, Caela.

      Of course I am interested. And you can copy and paste ANY of my posts into your blog and link it back to my URL.

      I will also try to contribute there as and when I can.

      I should warn you about my position nowadays, if you haven’t already noticed.

      This blog started out simply and solely in support of Tony Blair before he was truly out of office – for almost a year. When he left I was going to fold it as the useless Brown had replaced him.

      Then I couldn’t let it go. There was so many comparisons to be made between the two of them, and how the country felt without Blair, and on how the Iraq war etc was going. And I became intrigued by all his post-premier interests.

      Then it developed into an anti-Islamicist blog, more or less, but not only.

      That happened organically, not by intention. I spent so much time on the internet trying to counter the little anti-Blairites’ propaganda, that I found too much, far too much that got me worried about creeping Sharia and Islamicisation of MY country. And yet the PC brigade kept screaming that WE had to understand these poor creatures who wanted to kill us, and already had killed some of us, because they were only a minority. And anyway it was all Blair’s fault. All rubbish, of course.

      True, they are only a minority, but the most dangerous minority ever. Brainwashed suicidal murderers, with a huge “I’m a victim” chip on each shoulder.

      And Blair was no more to blame than Winston Churchill.

      Such as Anjem Choudary have been screaming about jihad and a caliphate since the early 1980s.

      I’m afraid WE in this country have allowed it to happen, by failing to insist on OUR standards and on OUR traditions. ALL three political parties, not just the Labour party. We should have said, “you come here, you integrate, or you leave.” Blair did use almost those words in fact in a multiculturalism speech (2006 I think), but perhaps a little late. Such was the power of the Left in his party. I DO believe he was not allowed to say all he was thinking. He was, after all, already under personal threat from these terrorist animals, and from many in our own country for his actions over Iraq. I have a post here at the blog where a London barrister urged Al Qaeda to kill him.

      Everyone has a family to think about, even if they are less concerned about themselves. That, perhaps, and the fact that Tony Blair does have genuine faith in faith (wish I shared it) meant that he has chosen a path of bringing faiths together. It might work in the long term. I hope it does. But right now, my country Britain is the ONLY one, as I understand it of the EU states with Sharia courts!!!! Can you BELIEVE that? The first one was set up two months AFTER he left. What does that tell you?

      Medieval courts in this country- the Mother of Parliaments, whose justice system has been exported worldwide!

      So, that’s the short tale of Blair Supporter and where I stand on things. I don’t know if you or your friend agree, disagree, empathise, sympathise with me on this matter. I DO know you admire Mr Blair.

      But I will be happy to help in any way I can with your blog. You certainly seem like a like mind to me, Caela.

      Btw, your point on the public involvement of the Home Office is good. But they had no choice but to go public, if they were determined to ban him. Wilders would not have kept such a ban quiet, and the Dutch government would not have tried to stop a free EU citizen travelling.

      The Netherlands, far more than Britain obviously, understands that it is an illegal move.

  7. Caela Says:

    Blair Supporter,

    Well, when my friend talked me into this, we wanted to bring people in with diverse beliefs. (hence, the reason for the title and the blog’s disclaimer. http://aquarter.wordpress.com/about/) We want if to be a place where people can discuss different views and express different opinions. There are around 3 or 4 more contributors coming in “as soon as their schedules permit”. (also the reason why I’m online this weekend is to set the blog up and ready for the contributing writers.) So, we welcome you with open arms.

    Personally, I’ve been a religious nomad through the recent years and i pretty much stumbled into every major ones, even those small ones. In the end, I ended up subscribing to no religion. Don’t get me wrong, I say no religion not no faith because after everything I’ve seen and heard, I cannot deny the my belief that there is somebody/something up (or down or wherever) there. But to summarize my faith: I believe in God/Goddess/Spirit/Gaia (whatever you want to call him/her/it). Period.

    I think what we are against here is not Islam per se. It is the ideology, the misuse of religion and knowledge. The Sharia a mere interpretation of the Qur’an, it is not static set but more like a system of laws based on the interpretation of the Qur’an. And as with any written document the Qur’an can be twisted/interpreted in a way that serves the purpose of interpretation. Same thing can be done with any other sacred text or even any other written constitution. (Lawyers should understand this more than anyone else as they are known for interpreting laws in their/their client’s favor.)

    The thing is, it is hard to defeat an ideology. Because it is like a multi-headed serpent who will only regenerate no matter how many heads you cut off. And I’m afraid here’s where I’m lost. We can of course hope that fostering religious tolerance and understanding will be enough. But i think we will find that they are not the patient lot who will sit around listening to other faiths. Believe me, I’ve met many fanatics of different religions, they like to talk and they don’t listen. (Pretty much like the American foreign policy, really)

    And on Wilders case, no self-respecting politician would take that quietly, if at all. That much we can be certain.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:


      You may well be right – probably are – about Islam itself not being evil. But the main issues are, to me:

      1. There is no overarching authority powerful enough to insist that SOME of the Koran’s passages are no longer relevant (it cannot be questioned).

      2. It still conforms, to many of its followers, to its original tenets of 1600 years ago, and is finding difficulty adapting to modern ideas of democracy and freedom.

      3. Many fundamentalists only see our western forms of democracy as something to be USED in order that Islam becomes the societal norm. Then once in power Sharia Law (Islam) flies its flag over our present secular seats of government. A caliphate.

      4. From that position human rights are no more. Sharia Rights Rule! Thus punishments are as stated under Sharia/Koran. Fundamentalists do NOT recognise secular democracies, where ALL are treated according to HUMAN RIGHTS.

      5. Women are treated as second-class citizens.

      6. Criticism of Islam is not permitted – Iranian fatwa against Rushdie 20 years ago yesterday, cartoon threats, Wilders threats. This just does not happen under any other religion as far as I know today.

      7. Thus, from the above, there is no FREE SOCIETY, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EVEN OF THOUGHT.

      As far as I am concerned Islam and all it brings is not welcome here, until the debate has been had and people have heard all the facts, threats and “opportunities” and decided. We don’t need it, thank you very much. Here, the people decide, religious or not, and not the weak politically correct, or the weaker still political masters.

      Or that should be the case. But of course here in Britain many people have no idea of the facts or dangers.

  8. markvanderwal Says:

    Is there anyway we can help Wilders in his state?

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Hi mark,

      Well I know that his website has a “donate” link. But as for helping in other ways, you could add to the signatories at the Free Geert Wilders site – against his own government charging him. And just comment at other blogs like mine, perhaps, to draw attention to the numbers of people unhappy with this.

      I’d like to see a campaign to get “Liberty”, who are ALWAYS looking to help certain types of “iffy” characters who are at least some of the time a threat to Britain, putting their voice behind Wilders. They are unsurprisingly quiet on all of this.

      I am pretty much convinced that that organisation is, like many others here – for instance within the British press – a fifth column in Britain, out to destroy our country and its traditions AND its legal system. They may not all realise this, but that is the end result of their constant dissembling of our institutions.

      Do a search for “Shami Chakrabarti”. Or ‘Shame of Chakrabarti’, as I prefer to call her.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s