Londonistan is the Real Threat

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated this op-ed from today’s Elsevier:

By denying access to Wilders, London rewards terror

By Afshin Ellian

I am always right. For some time now I have been writing that he is The Great Danger. England now has also discovered The Great Danger.

The British Government with its decision has forced all the political opponents of Geert Wilders to defend him unequivocally. A decision that would sow division created unity.

Sower of Hate

Denying access to Wilders has nothing to do with British law. It was a political decision whereby the Member of Parliament Wilders was labeled as an extremist and hate-monger. A decision without the intervention of a court: a political decision.

The British decision has two very difficult and really dangerous aspects.

Solidarity

The solidarity that is the foundation of the European Union has been under pressure for some time. British workers called in recent weeks for “our own workers first”.

The same applies to Europe’s economic rescue plan. This won’t get off the ground because the EU countries don’t want solidarity.

And now Great Britain puts the principle of free movement of persons in question without a legitimate reason. The case is of course incomparable to the denial of violence preaching imams. In the end, this is about a parliamentarian.

Football supporters

What are the limits? Can the Netherlands for the preservation of “harmony” in Amsterdam, ban football teams from England? Should the Netherlands in the past have banned Salman Rushdie out of fear of attacks?

- - - - - - - - -

Should Poland deny access to the chief editor of the NRC Handelsblad, because insults to Catholicism? This, because the NRC wrote an editorial with the title “Benedict the Bold” (January 28), about the rehabilitation of a British anti-Semitic bishop.

Critical limit

Of course every European with a little common sense knows that when we start denying access to each other’s parliamentarians, we reach a critical threshold of diplomatic relations within the EU.

If Wilders’ movement grows, the British have a little problem. For how does the British ambassador want to lobby with Wilders for more Dutch troops in Afghanistan? It was a stupid and dangerous decision.

Islamists

The second dangerous aspect of the British Wilders-affair concerns the Islamists.

The Iranian state newspaper Kayhan, mouthpiece for the opinions of the Revolutionary Guard, the intelligence services and the leader of Iran, wrote a happy comment on this affair. They link the refusal to let Geert Wilders enter the UK to the Rushdie case.

That is why they gave their commentary the title, “Salman Rushdie the Second has been expelled”:

“At first the death sentence by Imam Khomeini on Rushdie harvested sharp reactions on the part of some European states, especially England. But this sentence in fact has driven a huge fear into the guardians of the offenders of Islam, which made them later decide not to put up with these kinds of projects anymore.”

Undiplomatic language

Translated into undiplomatic language: “We scared the European states with a death sentence. They have condemned us, but now we reap the fruits thereof. Wilders, with an anti-Islam project similar to Rushdie’s, is now opposed by the English government.”

That is what they say in Tehran. What is the conclusion? Terror and threats and are rewarded in the European Union. And this will further attract terror and insecurity.

Safety

The British decision will for that very reason endanger the national security of Great Britain. Also in England are people who criticize Islam. If London cares so much about peace, order, and security in England, why were they for all those years in the forefront of military operations against the Islamists, while Great Britain has long been a Great Londonistan?

And that Londonistan in England is the real threat to the harmony and national security of the British.