Quoi de neuf ?

Bienvenue sur Psychonaut.fr !

Le forum des amateur.ices de drogues et de l'exploration de l'esprit

Dutch rasist banned from entering the UK

  • Auteur de la discussion Auteur de la discussion GOD
  • Date de début Date de début

GOD

Holofractale de l'hypervérité
Inscrit
14/1/06
Messages
14 944
The dutch mp and internationaly known rasist geert wilders has been banned from entering the UK because of him spreading rasist propoganda says the BBC world service .
 
I wish we could ban him from entering the Netherlands, but he already is here. :cry:

Wilders is an idiot.
 
Wilders asked questions in parliament about the possibility of banning Imams, for spreading hate full propaganda.
(imam Khalid Yasim from the UK)
Now all comes full circle, as he himself is banned from the UK for the same reason.
 
GOD a dit:
The dutch mp and internationaly known rasist geert wilders has been banned from entering the UK because of him spreading rasist propoganda says the BBC world service .
LOL, those are your words, not those of the BBC!
Unless you've got another source than these:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7882953.stm

The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.

"The government opposes extremism in all forms," it said in a statement, adding that it had tightened up rules on excluding those engaging in "unacceptable behaviour" in October.

"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred, and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country."

The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views.
So, would his personal presence threaten public security?
Labour peer Lord Ahmed, who expressed his concerns to the Parliamentary authorities about Mr Wilders' visit, said he welcomed the decision to ban the MP.

"It would be unwise to have him in the UK because this man's presence would cause hatred," he said. "He has a case against him in the Amsterdam court for inciting hatred."

Lord Ahmed, who said other Muslim peers shared his concerns, stressed that Mr Wilders' views would certainly present a threat to public order.

That's all I will say about it here, because I don't want to repeat everything I already explained in the Danger of Islam! thread.

Edit: removed the first BBC link, because it was from 2008.
 
I dont see any difference in the meaning of what i wrote...... wich the BBC world service just reported in its world news and what you have quoted . The only difference is that what you quoted didnt contain the word rasist . The BBC world service news did .

The first quote you used was from Thursday, 28 February 2008, 11:49 GMT .

The second quote says "Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred,"

"Earlier this year, a Dutch court ordered prosecutors to put Mr Wilders on trial for inciting hatred and discrimination by making anti-Islamic statements. "

"The Dutch prime minister has said the film (fitna ) served "no purpose other than to offend".

The Home Office said there was a blanket ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK under EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security.

"The government opposes extremism in all forms," it said in a statement, adding that it had tightened up rules on excluding those engaging in "unacceptable behaviour" in October."It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred, and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country."

"Chris Huhne, Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said he had watched the film, which he called "revolting", and backed the ban."Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it," he said."But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group."


" I don't want to repeat everything I already explained in the Danger of Islam! thread."

Thank god for that .
 
GOD a dit:
The only difference is that what you quoted didnt contain the word rasist .
What you wrote was: "The dutch mp and internationaly known rasist geert wilders has been banned from entering the UK because of him spreading rasist propoganda says the BBC world service ."

That is not factual. He's banned because if they let him in, there will be an uproar from the muslim community. That's the "threat to public order" he poses. He's not banned for spreading a particular type of "propaganda".

The first quote you used was from Thursday, 28 February 2008, 11:49 GMT .
You mean link. Both quotes were from this week. I removed the first link.

edit: tags
 
"That is not factual"

The BBC world service just said that in their last news . Did you watch it ? If you didnt shut the fuck up and stop talking shit .
 
GOD a dit:
The BBC world service just said that in their last news . Did you watch it ? If you didnt shut the fuck up and stop talking shit .
Is this thread only for those who, like you, watched the program?
 
in the first post, GOD clearly referred to the BBC world service...That's why his quote is indeed valuable.
 
The post from caduceus , just like most of his posts , is just slimey blah , blah , that doesnt help anyomne , dont say anything constructive , just the same old talking round things and not answering questions .

I copyed the date of that article from the BBC directly from there to my post . It said last updated on that date .

The law and how its worded have nothing to do with what the BBC comentater and what the video spot said in the 1.00 news . The law is deliberately worded to include different types of hate preachers .

The british minister in charge of the banning of the dutch rasist MP has said in the program "Hard talk" that he was banned for amongst other things the rasist things he was saying .
 
The west has totally abused the arab nations over the past 100 years, bombed millions of arabs and when a few arabs finally snap the racists turn around and twist it to their advantage "oh my gosh look at this religion of extremism".

He's banned because if they let him in, there will be an uproar from the muslim community.

That's an interpretation of events, not a fact.

Besides, why wouldn't there be an uproar? If your ethnicity was already facing racism, discrimination and prejudice on a day-to-day level, and you were about to be slandered in parliament behind closed doors, of course you'd raise a stink. In some ways I would have liked to see that, 10,000 muslims peacefully protesting, I'm sure the racists would still find a way to twist it to their advantage though.

This is no different than the way the west has always treated the arabs, ever since the days of colonialism. Poke with sharp stick. Poke. Poke. Poke. Feign innocence when reaction provoked. Then poke some more.

Anyway, good on parliament for stopping this nonsense that does nothing but deepen wounds, not heal them.
 
The British foreign secretary David Miliband said in an interview with the BBC that there is a right to freedom of speach but no right to stand up in a theater full of people and shout fire and that there is no right to stir up religeous and racial hate .
 
GOD a dit:
The dutch mp and internationaly known rasist geert wilders has been banned from entering the UK because of him spreading rasist propoganda says the BBC world service .
Does anyone realise how completely misinformed you have to be to describe Geert Wilders as a racist?
Also the dutch mp? What abbreviation is that?
And yet again to burn down babylon, you shouldn't become it.
He discriminates surely, but not quite on grounds of race. Don't be indifferent to this important detail.
 
Its the English initials for Member of Parlament .

Please tell us your opinion of why he isnt a rasist ?
 
GOD a dit:
Its the English initials for Member of Parlament .

Please tell us your opinion of why he isnt a rasist ?
Because, he doesn't discriminate people based on their race, he discriminates them on basis of religion. Which IMO is quite an important difference.
 
Because race, lineage, country of birth, color of skin etc. can never be changed, whereas ones religion can be transformed or abandoned. And knowing what we do about reality now, pointing out the flaws and dangers of religion has nothing to do with spreading hate.
 
Since when isnt antisemitism raceism ?

Please dont play silly word games . Jews arent a race , neither are moslems in the strict sense of the word . Words are also defined by the way that they are commonly used .
 
GOD a dit:
Since when isnt antisemitism raceism ?
Are you referring to a certain antisemitist? I don't understand your question.

Please dont play silly word games .
I'm not here to play games, or to be right, but to exchange information with others. When the word "anti-Islamicist" is commonly used, accurate and unambiguous, why bring in "racist"?

Words are also defined by the way that they are commonly used .
So stop using the word please, because most people who grew up in the past few decades associate the word with Apartheid and racial prejudice.
 
I wasnt talking to you . When i wrote my post yours wasnt there . You should stop playing word games to . A word is also defined by how it is used .

"So stop using the word please, because most people who grew up in the past few decades associate the word with Apartheid and racial prejudice."

Most people ? Maybe in your "world" . How big is your "world" ? , where have you been ? , where does your "experience" of life come from ? An armchair ?

The apartheid / rasism wasnt just aimed at negros it was also aimed at what are known there as coloured people = part negro and part "white" .Those "coloured" people arent a seperate race they are a mixture .

Again , tell us where you have been in the world ? Or is your "experience" just armchair philosophy .
 
Retour
Haut