Mr Geert Wilders. Source hereI am undecided so please suggest a title for this piece. Words that have occurred to me so far have been "cowards", "poltroonery", and "appeasers."
I am referring to the case where a democratically-elected Dutchman, Geert Wilders, was refused entry to the United Kingdom on the grounds that he might stir up trouble, because he has unfashionable views about Islamists. The Islamists showing their usual disregard for historical accuracy, or indeed any kind of accuracy, have labelled Mr Wilders a "fascist" which personally I do not believe he is. He has been accused of religious hatred. Actually whilst I wouldn't say I hate religion, I would be inclined to say that Religion of nearly every persuasion leaves me distinctly underwhelmed, based as it is on pathetic superstition. As the Marquis de Montaigne so wisely observed, "Man is truly stupid: he cannot make a worm, yet he creates gods by the dozen."
These events have shown the United Kingdom in a very poor light indeed - showing that there is a distinct lack of what the military used to call "moral fibre."
The Government in the form of Miss "Jacqui" Smith, Home Secretary, has been quick to criticise Mr Wilders. Unfortunately it is not long since the self-same government buckled under to the United States over the case of the British Guantanamo Bay prisoner , Binyam Mohammed who has said to have been been subjected to appalling torture with, if not the connivance of MI6, at least with the knowledge of two or perhaps more of its officers.
With this in mind, the British Government is in no position to attempt to occupy the high moral ground it seems to claim in the case of Mr Wilders. It should, for a start, ask itself whether it is responsible for running the country, or whether this important function is henceforth to be carried out only after seeking and obtaining the approval of the Islamists who perhaps represent 5% of the population.
Poltroons indeed! Apparently, "The Government remains committed to the principle of free speech."
What a joke.
News links here , here., here and here
I am referring to the case where a democratically-elected Dutchman, Geert Wilders, was refused entry to the United Kingdom on the grounds that he might stir up trouble, because he has unfashionable views about Islamists. The Islamists showing their usual disregard for historical accuracy, or indeed any kind of accuracy, have labelled Mr Wilders a "fascist" which personally I do not believe he is. He has been accused of religious hatred. Actually whilst I wouldn't say I hate religion, I would be inclined to say that Religion of nearly every persuasion leaves me distinctly underwhelmed, based as it is on pathetic superstition. As the Marquis de Montaigne so wisely observed, "Man is truly stupid: he cannot make a worm, yet he creates gods by the dozen."
These events have shown the United Kingdom in a very poor light indeed - showing that there is a distinct lack of what the military used to call "moral fibre."
The Government in the form of Miss "Jacqui" Smith, Home Secretary, has been quick to criticise Mr Wilders. Unfortunately it is not long since the self-same government buckled under to the United States over the case of the British Guantanamo Bay prisoner , Binyam Mohammed who has said to have been been subjected to appalling torture with, if not the connivance of MI6, at least with the knowledge of two or perhaps more of its officers.
With this in mind, the British Government is in no position to attempt to occupy the high moral ground it seems to claim in the case of Mr Wilders. It should, for a start, ask itself whether it is responsible for running the country, or whether this important function is henceforth to be carried out only after seeking and obtaining the approval of the Islamists who perhaps represent 5% of the population.
Poltroons indeed! Apparently, "The Government remains committed to the principle of free speech."
What a joke.
News links here , here., here and here
UPDATE: Here's a well thought-out piece on the subject from Charles Moore at the Daily Telegraph.
SECOND UPDATE: Today the BBC has another story on this subject. The key paragraphs are:
Lawyers acting for Mr Mohamed have campaigned for alleged evidence of his torture to be made public.
Last week, judges refused to order the disclosure of a summary of US reports on his detention, citing a threat to US intelligence-sharing with Britain.
Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones ruled that some parts of papers referring to Mr Mohamed should remain secret, following the threat from the US to halt the sharing of information on terrorism.
However, they said Foreign Secretary David Miliband believed there was a "real risk" that the potential loss of intelligence co-operation would seriously increase the threat from terror faced by the UK.
Mr Miliband later insisted there had been "no threat" from the US.
And still more stinky stuff has come to light; this will run for a while I think.
Until the next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment