Friday, February 13, 2009

Questions for the Lords

Yesterday’s question period in the House of Lords is available on video Below is a transcript of the relevant sections:

Private Notice Question (11.36 am) asked by Lord Taverne

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given private notice.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, under European law, a member state of the European economic area may refuse entry to a national of another EEA state if they constitute a threat to public policy, public security or public health.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am aware that Mr Wilders holds views highly offensive to the Muslim community, but freedom of speech issues often raise awkward questions. Indeed, this ban has united in opposition the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, the Dutch Government—unusual allies—and also a section of the Muslim community which cares about freedom of expression. Does the Home Office agree that causing offence, even deep offence, to particular religious groups is no reason for compromising on the principle of freedom of expression? Why else did we repeal the laws on blasphemy? Since this is a ban on an EU citizen and Member of Parliament who has been convicted of no offence, and who has been invited to a private showing of a film in this House—not a rally in Trafalgar Square—does it not set a deeply disturbing precedent for the vital question of freedom of expression?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the Government and I are great believers in freedom of expression. Indeed, I am constantly getting into trouble because I am too free with my expressions at times. But the decision was not based purely on the film “Fitna”, but also on a range of factors, including prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination, and other statements. The Home Secretary has to make a decision, as was said, on anyone coming in if they are a threat to public policy or public security in particular. We are constantly looking at this and are very robust about it with all sorts of extremists, from whichever corner they come. I regularly, across my desk, have to give advice to the Home Secretary about stopping people coming into this country, because I do not think it is appropriate that they should be here. I think it is good that we are being robust about this, and absolutely appropriate that the Home Secretary should have made this decision.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there seems to be a bit of a lottery as to who is admitted and who is not. Are there any criteria by which the Home Secretary works, even if advised by the noble Lord, to justify who is refused admittance and who is not?
- - - - - - - - -
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, there is effectively a list of things the Home Secretary will check through when she is making a decision about whether someone should be allowed into this country. Of course, as the House will well know, quite often we will say that someone should not come into this country, but they then appeal and, through our judicial system, it is decided that they should be allowed to do so. One of the great strengths and joys of this country is that there is a very robust approach to these things. Sometimes, it surprises many of us that that person is allowed to come in and continue to say things—that seems very strange, whatever persuasion they come from. There is a list, and it is checked through. As I said, the Home Secretary thought long and hard about this. The decision was based on a whole raft of things, not just on this film. I believe that it was the correct decision.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, for asking this Question. I suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. I only have one question, because I know that we do not want to spend long on this. Does the noble Lord think that this situation would have occurred if Mr Wilders had said, “Ban the Bible”? If it would not have occurred, why not? Surely, the violence and the disturbance that may arise from showing this film in this country is not caused by the film, which merely attempts to show how the violent Islamist uses the Koran to perpetrate his terrible acts, but by the jihadist, the violent Islamist. In doing what the Government have done, surely they are therefore guilty of appeasement.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I certainly do not think that we are guilty of appeasement in any way whatever. I do not want to go down the route of discussing a hypothetical case about what if he had talked about this or that. I am afraid that I am rather constrained about exactly what I can say about him. He is under prosecution in the Netherlands for incitement and discrimination. Clearly, anything that I say in this House could become involved in that, and I would not wish that to happen. It would be wrong if that was the case. Also, he can appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision, and anything that I say could be used there.

As I said, we are very robust across the board. We take no sides on this. We treat people whom we believe are a threat to the security and safety of this nation in exactly the same way, from whatever cloth they come; that is extremely important. I believe that this was the right decision.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, the Minister has talked about incitement, and reference has been made to the possibility of counterprotests. These are public order matters. The criterion that the Minister should be operating under is public security, which is a different thing.

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, again, I really cannot go too far down this route. These things will be looked at in the Court of Appeal and in the court of another nation. I do not wish to go down this route; I think that it would be wrong for me to do so.

Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister comment on one matter, which might enable us to make up our minds? Who brought this matter to the attention of the Home Secretary? Since this man is an EU citizen, he does not have to apply specially to come to our country. How did this become a matter of public policy?

Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, because I am not quite sure how it came to the attention of the Home Secretary. I was first aware of this about a week ago. I do not know the answer. Perhaps I can write to my noble friend when I can discover the answer.

Thanks to Flyboy for the link and the transcript.


Joanne said...

The Home Secretary is trying to secure her head on her neck, but she fails to realize that those she tries to appease see her as a traitor to her own people, and will off her head at first chance.

I would venture to guess that the Home Secretary would have received a complaint from a Muslim who would have threatened a physical retaliation if Wilders was allowed into Britain. Since the Fitna film would still be shown, the complaint doesn't seem to be with the showing, but with the man, Wilders, who could possibly cause the pathetic, laid-back British to possibly rise up against their soon-to-be Muslim overlords and send them packing. Heaven forbid the British would get a own British blood is recoiling in disgust for the British government and the weak people of Britain who watch and say and do nothing.

Czechmade said...

Maybe we should provide the Lords with a much tougher guy, so that they can say:

This Dutch fellow was very gentle and empathic, now we have to deal with someone from New Europe, these guys never mince the words and drive us to the extreme of full comprehension of the most difficult matter which implies horrible attitudes as "no apology to the devil".

Zenster said...

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there seems to be a bit of a lottery as to who is admitted and who is not. Are there any criteria by which the Home Secretary works, even if advised by the noble Lord, to justify who is refused admittance and who is not?

As a source of infinite amusement, few others can compete with the British knack for understatement. A "lottery", indeed! What a priceless toss-off to disguise unmitigated contempt for the capricious and preferential Home Office system that admits Sheik Yusuf (“Beat Your Wife Lightly”) Qaradawi—the prime mover and fatwa issuer in sanctifying bomb vest murderers—even as Geert Wilders, a lone European sentinel against Islam’s threat, is barred at the gates.

Must not many of Britain’s politicians become rather embarrassed over the way they spend so much time with fingers stuck in ears while screaming at the top of their lungs, “Tra-la-la-la-la, I can’t hear you!”?

Czechmade: Maybe we should provide the Lords with a much tougher guy, so that they can say:

This Dutch fellow was very gentle and empathic, now we have to deal with someone from New Europe, these guys never mince the words and drive us to the extreme of full comprehension of the most difficult matter which implies [such] horrible attitudes as "no apology to the devil".

Here we begin to see a glimmer of what Charlemagne, Whiskey and El Inglés have been predicting for some time now. Namely, the Strong Horse or Big Man European leader who will sweep aside these EUnuch nancyboy pansies and begin cutting a swath through Muslim “No Go Zones” with a flame thrower.

John F. Kennedy once said that; ”Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” By artificially inhibiting Europe’s autoimmune system against non-assimilating Muslim colonists, these pantywaist Social Engineers are precipitating carnage on an unimaginable scale.

This same schematic extends to the global model as well. By refusing to decapitate Islam’s jihadist leadership—and, instead, choosing to fight terrorism on a “Bullet by Bullet” basis—Western leaders almost guarantee that the entire MME (Muslim Middle East), will be incinerated in retaliation for Islam’s first wave of terrorist nuclear attacks.

You can bet the farm that the Jews will not be those who go quietly into the night this time around. A holocaust of monstrous proportions ominously looms upon the horizon and Islam’s appetite for both destruction and self-destruction is being spoon-fed by the West’s spineless political traitors.

Ρωμανός ~ Romanós said...

Bravo to Zenster! Not only do I love what you wrote here, but even more I love the way you wrote it! Whoever you are, I salute you! Axios kai bravo!

spackle said...

With all due respect to the people of Spithead. Take away the "of" in the Lords title and replace the "p"with an "H" and I think you have summed the man up. Sorry Baron. I know it is juvenile but I couldnt resist.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

First, kudos to Zenster for a well written comment indeed.

There has always been traitors throughout history but neverbefore have they been so many as they are now in this time and age. Each western country is ripe with these bastards. This time it is not just one Judas Iscariot or Vidkun Quisling. Now they go by hundreds if not thousands in one single country alone. As it is I have no doubt that there will be events of apocalyptic proportions over the next few years. Who will write the future history books for the coming generations? Will it be the muslim savages? Or the traitors who if they walk out of this on the winning side, undoubtedly will portray themselves as glorius victors and heroes? Or will those two groups annihilate each other (and most of the world in their struggle for supramacism)? What will become of the rest of us who survives this mayhem? Will they live in a kind of Mad Max-world?

Buddahfan said...

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was going to go to Britian and the Jews their protested which would be more likely to happen.

1 Ahmadinejad not let into Britian as a possible threat to peace as Wilders has been charged or

2. The Jewish protesters arrested and Ahmadinejad be allowed into Great Britian.

Zenster said...

Thank you, Romanós and Robin Shadowes, for such kind words. This entire situation is attaining apocalyptic dimensions for only two reasons:

First and foremost, it is because Islam will not have it any other way. This one fact must never be forgotten. Islam, by its triumphalist and supremacist doctrine, literally assures an All-or-Nothing outcome. It has always been this way while only the recent advent of nuclear weapons has recast this dilemma in an entirely different and infinitely more dire frame. None of this is the West’s fault in any way, shape or form. It is the very nature of the Islamic beast and remains so to this day. This, depite how steadfastly most Western politicians continue to deny it.

Secondly, Western inaction or outright collusion continues to accelerate both Islam’s catastrophic onslaught against all non-Muslim cultures and propel the escalation of this conflict to increasingly drastic proportions. Native law enforcement’s historic charter of protecting its indigenous citizens has been perverted over to the obscene defense of a foreign minority that aggressively seeks to dismantle Western culture. These treasonous European governments have literally mandated retaliatory sedition and outright defiance of their arbitrarily imposed dystopian Social Engineering.

Islam’s All-or-Nothing ultimatum and Socialist Europe’s Life-and-Death impasse only serve to further polarize native Europeans in ways not seen since World War II. This summons forth a grim specter of the Continent reverting back to its most hideous demeanor. Stripped of all other alternatives by their nanny state turned dominatrix bureaucracy, truly ugly choices await any indigenous Europeans intent upon survival. Those who find themselves forced to resort to such brutal means will bear far less blame than their treasonous leaders and the Muslim barbarians that they have invited to crash Western civilization’s gates.

Much as how the Soviet communists were never forced to pay for their monstrous crimes against humanity: It is equally doubtful that Europe’s traitors will ever face well-deserved retribution for betraying their electorates in such a wholesale manner.

Czechmade said...

A paradox should be the pillar of our faith:

By knowing and describing the worst scenarios we can avoid them. By avoiding to think of these scenarios - we invite them.

The thief feeling the hand of an anticipating policeman is weakened in his intentions. Give the thief just two seconds to touch the object of his desire. He will shrink and his hand fades in strength: he is definitaly NOT interested in those two seconds of illegal ownership.