The speech Geert Wilders would have given in the House of Lords, had he not been banned from entering the United Kingdom

[...] Nancy Scola wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnnouncement. Radio Interview. Ali Sina discusses Islam and his $50000 challenge to Muslims. 2/11/2009 3:00 PM Central Time Zone Listen. Islam in Video. Wife Beating in Islam - Only a rod will help!(click here to enlarge and comment) … [...]

[...] Geert Wilders var varsarray=[]; varsarray[0]='10649'; if(!token) {var token='0'} else {var [...]

This is unbelievable. Those who scream "Behead all infidels" are welcome into Britain, whilst those who say "Stop beheading infidels" are unwelcome. Churchill must be turning in his grave at such groveling appeasement to the promoters of terror. Shame Britain - you are great no more. In your country Islam is now the greatest.

Don't forGeert Wilders!
Stop talking, start acting.
Isn't Geert's freedom worth a stamp?

If Geert Wilders falls, then Freedom of speech is dead in Europe. We are launching an extensive International Action SITA including two possible texts ; one comparing Wilders and Winston Churchill and another Wilders and Charlie Chaplin:

http://sitamnesty.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/i-support-democrat-geert-wins...

http://sitamnesty.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/i-support-democrat-geert-char...

To support Geert Wilders and our dearly acquired freedoms please participate to the 2 suggested actions and transmit this message to your friends owners of a website in order they publish it.

An other way to support Geert Wilders is to give some money. To donate: www.geertwilders.nl

geert wilders
i support his speech only partially.
there is no need to comment on things about islam.
But there is a must about communism.
da deep root of communism is liberty and fairness.
now if 1 doesn't appreciate communism or at least democracy, how can 1 learn truly that others have the same right to develop/decide? 'coz of that 1 will somehow have a lil desire to take control over others. n isn't that da reason y 1 wants to be like an owner in muslim world?
not wanting to be live in democracy also means u dont actually truly understand the value of liberty. that pushes 1 into the danger of being fooled by islamism.
criticizing communism or detesting democracy r just wrong.
n actually, unfortunately, communism was nearly defeated coz the leader wasn't clever enuf to choose the right path.

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 capital is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

If the Muslims don't like our holidays and customs so much, then they can go back to their Islamic hell holes. I have no problem with Muslims celebrating there holidays as long as they make positive contributions to their new homelands, but when they make demands to take away the nonmuslims ( natural born citizens of the countries they reside in ) right to celebrate their religious holidays, that is a different subject. Also every person has the right to acknowledge the existence or nonexistence of God and that includes the right to pray. Prayer is a personal thing a believer takes part in and nonbelievers should not be forced to pray to a god they don't believe in. This shows how stupid the British people have become in terms of appeasement and multiculturalism.

Here's something about Wilders from The Wall Street Journal by Bret Stephens

Geert Wilders Is a Test for Western Civilization
If Rushdie should be defended, why not the Dutch pol?

*
By BRET STEPHENS

Columnist's name

* Article

more in Opinion »

* Email
* Printer Friendly
* Share:
o Yahoo Buzz more
o facebook
o MySpace
o LinkedIn
o Digg
o del.icio.us
o NewsVine
o StumbleUpon
o Mixx
* smaller Text Size larger
*

Twenty years ago, Andres Serrano put a plastic crucifix in a glass of urine, photographed it and called it art. Conservatives in particular weren't pleased: not with Mr. Serrano, not with his picture, and not with the National Endowment for the Arts, which had forked over $15,000 in taxpayer money to support this uretic gesture.

Also 20 years ago: On Valentine's Day, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, condemning him to death for supposedly blaspheming Islam in his novel, "The Satanic Verses." Iran later upped the ante by severing diplomatic ties with Britain and putting a bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head. The fatwa remains in effect today by order of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei.
[Global View] AP

Geert Wilders.

These twin anniversaries come to mind following the British government's decision last week to ban Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders from British soil as an "undesirable person." Mr. Wilders is also being prosecuted for hate speech in his native Holland, where he faces up to 16 months in prison if convicted. His alleged crime involves making a short film called "Fitna," which draws a straight line between Quranic verses and acts of Islamist terror. Mr. Wilders has also called for banning the Quran, which he labels a "fascist book" on a par with Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

Whatever else might be said about Mr. Wilders's travel ban and prosecution, it helps put into context the events of 1989. In the case of Mr. Serrano, liberal Americans went into a lather about defending his rights to artistic expression and freedom of speech against the parochial leaders of the religious right, men like Jesse Helms and Pat Robertson. Never mind that the worst of their threats involved withholding public funding; fundamental things were said to be at stake.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

As for the Rushdie affair, after some initial hesitation most of the liberal intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic rallied to his cause. True, there were some dissenters: Jimmy Carter called "The Satanic Verses" a "direct insult to those millions of Muslims whose sacred beliefs have been violated" while feminist Germaine Greer declared that she "[refused] to sign petitions for that book, which was about his own troubles."

On the whole, however, the West held firm. A joint statement issued by the foreign ministers of the European Community insisted that "fundamental principles are at stake," adding that they "remain fully committed to the principles of freedom of thought and expression within their territories."

Fast forward to Mr. Wilders's situation and what's remarkable is that his most serious detractors -- those that aren't themselves Islamists or spokesmen for supposedly mainstream Muslim organizations -- tend to fall to the political left. In Holland, leaders of both the Socialist and Labor parties support the prosecution. In Britain, it's the Labour government of Gordon Brown that has enforced the travel ban. In Germany, the leftish Der Spiegel calls Mr. Wilders "pushy" and accuses him of making "hate-filled tirades." Elsewhere he is described as a "racist," an "Islamophobe," and so on.

For his part, Mr. Wilders says he hates Islam as an ideology, not Muslims as individuals, and categorically parts company with the neo-fascist European right typified by the late Jörg Haider. He has also traveled extensively in the Middle East; even Der Spiegel admits "he is not a dull racist and xenophobe."

But irrespective of Mr. Wilders's politics -- and I wouldn't be the first to point out that his calls to ban the Quran square oddly with his sense of himself as a champion of free speech -- his travails are no less significant than Mr. Rushdie's. And they present a test for both liberals and conservatives.

For liberals, the issue is straightforward. If routine mockery of Christianity and abuse of its symbols, both in the U.S. and Europe, is protected speech, why shouldn't the same standard apply to the mockery of Islam? And if the difference in these cases is that mockery of Islam has the tendency to lead to riots, death threats and murder, should committed Christians now seek a kind of parity with Islamists by resorting to violent tactics to express their sense of religious injury?

The notion that liberals can have it both ways -- champions of free speech on the one hand; defenders of multiculturalism's assorted sensitivities on the other -- was always intellectually flimsy. If liberals now want to speak for the "right" of this or that group not to be offended, the least they can do is stop calling themselves "liberals."

For conservatives, especially of the cultural kind -- the kind of people who talk about defending Western Civ. -- Mr. Wilders's case should also provoke some reconsiderations. It may not be impossible to denounce the likes of Mr. Serrano while defending the likes of Mr. Wilders. But a defense of Mr. Wilders is made a lot easier if one can point to the vivid difference between a civilization that protects, even celebrates (and funds!), its cultural provocateurs and a civilization that seeks their murder.

This is no small point. Western civilization is not simply the "Judeo-Christian tradition." It is also the civilization of Socrates and Aristophanes, Hume and Voltaire, Copernicus and Darwin; of religious schismatics and nonbelievers. This is the civilization that is now required to define itself, oddly enough, by the case of a flamboyant Dutch politician with inconsistent ideas and a bouffant hairdo. If he can't be defended, neither can Mr. Rushdie. Or Mr. Serrano. Liberals and conservatives alike, take note.

In regards to Stephens comments about liberals and multiculturalism, I have to say liberals cannot have both ways: Be defenders of free speech and Multiculturalism, because free speech means the right to criticize Islam and Islamic culture. So therefore liberals are not defenders of free speech, they are appeasers to Multiculturalism and Islam.

Excellent speech from Geert Wilders.

[...] FaithFreedom.org - The speech Geert Wilders would have given in the House of Lords, had he not been banned from enterin... [...]