Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Britain Capitulates to Muslim Extremism

Geert Wilders, the Dutch filmmaker and parliamentarian, has been banned from entering the United Kingdom by British authorities, who cited his presence a serious threat to society. Wilders was scheduled to show his film, Fitna, to the House of Lords.

Lord Nazir Ahmed, the first Muslim life peer in Britain's upper chamber, threatened to bring a mob of 10,000 Islamists to storm the Parliament.

Melanie Phillips puts things into perspective:

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide. If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.


Norm said...

Dhimmis, Dhimmis, they're all Dhimmis. The same show will soon be coming to Broadway.

AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks Norm!

removed said...

All the more reason to donate to the British National Party.

Does Britain have laws against foreign donors?

And the establishment wonders why so-called "right-wing" parties are on the climb.

Insane, suicidal, and oh so very depressing to watch one of the world's once greatest empires implode and crumble in on itself.

What is wrong with the West?

Rich Casebolt said...

The high-pitched vibration you are now feeling in your feet is coming from Winston Churchill's crypt, as he emulates a Rolls Royce turbofan in response to this idiocy.

Righty64 said...

A question. How did a radical Islamist become a member of the House of Lords in the first place? Amazing, but not unexpected. Oh, don't worry. This will be the federal government's type of reasoning for the next four, long years under President Obama.

Paul said...

Hi Jason, Britain does have laws against foreign donations to political parties. In any case the BNP are not good people - see my comment on your site.

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

I'm a fan of Geert Wilders. Clearly, the UK has a death wish. Now, the historical significance of the UK submitting to Islam should not be underestimated. Their annihilation is imminent at that point. So basically, the annihilation of the UK is handwriting on the wall. 3-5 years from genocide. That's the reality based on the facts that they will deny. In this world, 3-5 years is what I give them.

Anonymous said...

Enoch Powell made this threat clear in his "rivers of blood" speach, back in 1968. A gallop poll at the time back found that 74percent of Britains agreed that immigration need to be restricted. That it has not gives credibilty to Balzac who writes "There are people that remain behind the scenes of the world stage, and that is why there are two types of histoy: first the official, forged ad usum Delphini, and the second the secret one, in which the real causes of events are written down; a disgraceful history"

Benjamin Disraeli observed the same " the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes"

Theodore Roosevelt declared in 1912"behind the visible government there is an invisible government upon the throne that owes the peopl no loyalty and recognizes no responisbility"

The same year Woodrow Wilson said" We have come to be on of the worst ruled, on of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world. No longer a government of free opinion, no longer a fovernment by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men"

John Kennedy in his secret socities speach warned "We are opposed around the world by a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy"

The thwarting of the peoples will on immigration gives demonstrable proof to these mens claims.

Dr. Douglas why must you skitter across the surface and never plumb the depths of the true locations of power?

removed said...

Paul I read your comment over at my site and left a reply.

I do obviously understand your caution.