Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Real Nature of Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
As Far As The Eye Can See
by Moshe Dann
Threats of Pain and Ruin
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
















clear
Thursday, 12 February 2009
A black day for Britain
clear

Today was a black day for Britain. A democratically elected member of the Dutch Parliament with no criminal record has nevertheless been treated like a criminal, seized at Heathrow airport and sent home. A man who has not preached a word of violence, but has been the subject of death threats, has been summarily ejected from this country in an uncivil and in every way uncivilised fashion, by a Home Office that welcomes criminals and terrorists with open arms. The expression “Churchill would be turning in his grave,” hyperbolically trotted out on certain American websites in reaction to a banned piggy bank or re-naming of Christmas lights, now fits.

 

It applies, I still think and hope, to our despicable, gutless politicians, rather than to most of my fellow citizens. As Jerry Gordon points out, polls in the Daily Mail and even The Guardian, editorials in our newspapers and related readers' comments are overwhelmingly against the ban. Even the duplicitous Ed Husain of the Quilliam Foundation is against it, believing that “the bigot” should be heard.

 

It is the politicians who have the power, however. Foreign Secretary David Miliband, to whose imagined sense of decency his Dutch counterpart appealed, has power far out of proportion to his limited abilities. From the BBC:

 

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the BBC's Hardtalk: "The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do."

He added that the film contained "extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country".

Mr Miliband also said: "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land."

 

What has “fire in a crowded theatre” got to do with it? This is merely the theatre of public opinion; the only immediate and present danger, if that is what Miliband is bumbling towards, is the threat from Muslims. And what of those “very clear laws”? Fitna, as Wilders himself points out a clip from the piece linked above, was first broadcast on Liveleak, a British website. Tonight it will have been shown in Parliament itself – in the House of Lords, where Wilders, now branded a threat to public security, had lunch only last December. Was Fitna illegal then? Is it now legal only for peers of the realm and those with broadband? Unsurprisingly, David Miliand admitted that he had not actually seen the film, but stated that he did not need to as he knew what was in it. How, as Edmund Standing of Harry’s Place asks, is he different from those Muslims who burned The Satanic Verses without knowing what was in it?

 

David Miliband is Jewish. Whether from craven appeasement or profound ignorance, his words will not save him if emboldened Muslims start enforcing Sharia.

 

And what of our Home Secretary, the frivolously named “Jacqui” Smith, who has the ultimate responsibility for the ban? What time Ms Smith can spare from trampling on free speech, she has devoted to fleecing the taxpayer. UK readers will know that she has been exploiting loopholes in the already over-generous expenses allowed by making false claims about her main residence. Nest-feathering and greed are common among politicians, but her actions do not even surprise us. Her pettiness over this is at one with her reflexive banning of what she has not troubled to understand: both come from a mean spirit and a small mind. And how small a mind. Is “Jacqui” the best we can do? Lawrence Auster criticises female politicians for showing too much cleavage. In Ms Smith's case this is too harsh: she was merely exposing her thinking parts.

 

Fitna will have been screened by now in the House of Lords, and a lively debate should ensue. I hope and pray that the events of the past few days will serve to deepen the contempt of the British people for this Government. If anything may be salvaged from this day’s events it is that those – a majority, surely – who had not heard of Geert Wilders have now, and will watch Fitna and learn from it. Learn we must, in the hope that this will be Britain's darkest hour. 

clear
Posted on 02/12/2009 3:23 PM by Mary Jackson
Comments
12 Feb 2009
dumbledoresarmy

Mary - I understand 30 Peers attended the viewing.  Is there any way that the names of those thirty people can be discovered - so that they may be commended for exercising their initiative and judging for themselves rather than allowing themselves to be told what to think?

How many people are entitled to sit in the House of Lords? (i.e. what kind of a rollup does 30 represent?).

Also: my heartfelt admiration goes to Baroness Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson of Rannoch.  Are they Life Peers or Hereditary Peers?  Either way, they bring honour to the House of Lords and I hope they can inspire their fellow Peers to rise to the occasion and fulfil the oaths which the Lords Temporal swore at the Coronation, that is, to defend their Queen...and therefore all that she represents, all of which is, to judge from the information provided by 'Fitna', most gravely threatened by the Third Jihad. 



15 Feb 2009
Send an emailInfidel753

What has “fire in a crowded theatre” got to do with it?

Straightforward enough.  Whenever that metaphor is used, it's an indicator that the speaker is about to defend some heinous assault on freedom of expression.  Nothing more.  It's the all-purpose excuse when they can't defend what they are, concretely, doing. 





Guns, Germs and Steel in Tanzania
The Thinking Person's Safari
Led by Geoffrey Clarfield
Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
clear
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
    1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
clear

Subscribe