Then change the laws

Geert Wilders, who was coming to Britain for a screening of his film Fitna in the House of Lords, was refused entry into the country on standing orders from the Home Secretary who thought that Wilders was a danger to peace and security or some such thing. And Foreign Secretary David Miliband says-

The home secretary made a decision on an individual case as she is required to do…

[The film - Fitna - contains] extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country…

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.

Now Miliband is the same fellow who came to India earlier this year, and, before landing here, wrote a column ‘mentioning’ Kashmir in the Guardian (“resolution of the dispute over Kashmir would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms”), committing a diplomatic boo-boo – actually more than a boo-boo – in the process. Obviously different kinds of hate are to be treated to different standards – deport the one who speaks, agree with the one who kills.

Since crying fire in a theater has got nothing to do with free speech, and acts of speech and acts of physical violence are not the same, Britain should change its laws to reflect the “correct” position, and so should other countries. Unfortunately, freedom of speech has become a major casualty in the post-9/11 world with both political correctness and coercive government policies running riot. Actually Britain’s record on freedom of speech is pathetic – it is one of the favorite spots for “libel tourism,” and it cracks down on “hate speech” like there is no tomorrow (Now that Obama is here, expect the same in America, the First Amendment be damned).

So, the next time round, Miliband might want to take a look at the ranting and raving mullahs in his own backyard, and try to fix the laws before keeping Wilders out, or agreeing with those who want to keep him out.

Its a mad mad world.

The Wilders interview

If you have some how missed Geert Wilders and his anti-Koran film Fitna, go see it, and then read his interview to the WSJ-

Having his own party liberates Mr. Wilders to speak his mind. As he sees it, the West suffers from an excess of toleration for those who do not share its tradition of tolerance. “We believe that — ‘we’ means the political elite — that all cultures are equal,” he says. “I believe this is the biggest disease today facing Europe. . . . We should wake up and tell ourselves: You’re not a xenophobe, you’re not a racist, you’re not a crazy guy if you say, ‘My culture is better than yours.’ A culture based on Christianity, Judaism, humanism is better. Look at how we treat women, look at how we treat apostates, look at how we go with the separation of church and state. I can give you 500 examples why our culture is better.”

He acknowledges that “the majority of Muslims in Europe and America are not terrorists or violent people.” But he says “it really doesn’t matter that much, because if you don’t define your own culture as the best, dominant one, and you allow through immigration people from those countries to come in, at the end of the day you will lose your own identity and your own culture, and your society will change. And our freedom will change — all the freedoms we have will change.”

The murder of van Gogh lends credence to this warning, as does the Muhammad cartoon controversy of 2005 in Denmark. As for “Fitna,” it has not occasioned a violent response, but its foes have made efforts to suppress it. A Dutch Muslim organization went to court seeking to enjoin its release on the ground that, in Mr. Wilders’s words, “it’s not in the interest of Dutch security.” The plaintiffs also charged Mr. Wilders with blasphemy and inciting hatred. Mr. Wilders thought the argument frivolous, but decided to pre-empt it: “The day before the verdict, I broadcasted ['Fitna'] . . . not because I was not confident in the outcome, but I thought: I’m not taking any chance, I’m doing it. And it was legal, because there was not a verdict yet.” The judge held that the national-security claim was moot and ruled in Mr. Wilders’s favor on the issues of blasphemy and incitement.

He surely does believe in Popper’s paradox.