Charles Vs. Geert Wilders (and friends)

Wow, Chuckles must be reading my blog since he banned my IP address because this post is almost word for word what I've been saying about the Geert Wilders fiasco:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32732_Dutch_MP_Barred_from_Entering_Britain/comments/

(You'll probably have to cut and paste that one, I'm pretty sure he's blocked all of my links as well.)
Hat-tip: Jeppo

Dutch MP Barred from Entering Britain

World | Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:23:15 pm PST

Anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders has been barred from entering Britain, after a protest was lodged by Muslim House of Lords member Nazir Ahmed.

Yes, it’s a disgrace. Geert Wilders has the same right to free speech as anyone else, and the government of Britain is demonstrating once again that they’ve completely lost their way in a maze of multicultural contradictions.

However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech.

Also note that Wilders has recently announced he plans to form an alliance with the neofascist Belgian party Vlaams Belang.

So while I denounce Britain’s decision, I can’t support Wilders either while he maintains these positions and associations. Britain is wrong, and Wilders is also wrong. It’s a bad situation all around.

(Bold my emphasis, and truly, isn't this what I've been busy posting on? Maybe Spencer and Pamela Atlas will get the message now that its on LGF.)

Here's Sharmuta being utterly hilarious:

31 Sharmuta 2/10/09 3:33:43 pm reply quote

When will the Europeans start to take a more comprehensive, intellectual look at American principles? That limiting speech doesn't solve the underlying issues, but only masks them? That continuing with their anti-American sentiments makes it more difficult to consider alternative options to dealing with their issues?

We don't have everything perfect here in America, but what we did get right has allowed bigots to remain on the fringes where they belong, not masking their bigotry and gaining large following that legitimize them.

I know a lot of individual Europeans love America and Americans. What is wrong with the rest of them though? Embrace free speech! Embrace individual rights! And maybe from there some solutions to european issues could be found.

Then what the hell is Little Green Footballs, Sharmuta? Oh, and yes, you are on the fringes. I've seen LGF's Alexa traffic. Continuing:

(emphasis mine)

Now for Charles in comment #54:

Wilders' plans to ally with the VB have been confirmed to me by other sources.

And since Charles can't get enough of his own commentary:

119 Charles 2/10/09 4:58:24 pm reply quote

re: #117 Vik

The way you "defend yourself" against Islam is by using your power of free speech to argue, demonstrate and reveal what you think should be known. Not by banning religion, and taking away the rights of others.

Fascists ban books, and ban religions. Not people who believe in democracy.

Charles, the defender of free speech! As long as it isn't on his blog...um, yeah...

133 Charles 2/10/09 5:31:48 pm reply quote

re: #127 USBeast

Charles, I do not believe there are any "good ideas" regarding the situation in Europe, only ugly choices. I do not like any of them. I have no contact with neo-Nazis, fascists, Creationists, Truthers or Flat Earthers. I am not in a panic about Islam, but I am concerned about the fate of Western Civilization and consider free and open discussion of issues to be one of the bedrocks of that civilization.

If someone has been offended by any of my comments, please understand that no offense was intended.

I'm not offended - it's just that I've heard all of these arguments for compromising principles and hooking up with really bad people because "it's our only choice or we're doomed!" many times before.

I'm still surprised that people will actually argue that we should drop all our integrity and hook up with people who aren't even fit to be spat upon.

Hmmm, wonder who he's talking about here? (cough...Spencer...cough...Pamela)

199 Charles 2/10/09 8:18:54 pm reply quote


Anyone who advocates making Islam illegal or banning the Koran is living in a dream world. It's not going to happen. Ever. By advocating this crap, all you do is make yourself look like a fanatic.

If that's cool with you, then go ahead. Knock yourselves out.

202 Charles 2/10/09 9:11:45 pm reply quote

re: #201 Vik

Expose the imams, prosecute people who commit crimes, and use the military against stateless terrorist groups. We already have the methods in place to combat militant Islam.

You're dreaming if you think this country will criminalize speech. And if it ever does, it won't be a country I want to live in any more.

Chuckles, the problem solver of our century. Then again, he only posted this to anger his enemies and keep his little feud going. More popcorn anyone?

Posted in full here with even more charming comments.

Whose Free Speech?

Posted at Gates of Vienna Vs. The World Vs. LGF. I just reposted here for fun. I didn't post the whole enchilada as it has less to do with LGF but is still a "watch" type of post that includes the mindset of the "counter-jihadosphere" as seen also by LGF. The recent posts here including Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer encouraged me to post in part here. Enjoy!:


Sorry to take the tone to a more serious note here, but there have been many comments lately regarding freedom of speech, something I am all for (despite Robert Spencer's emailed accusations to the contrary). It is just glaringly obvious that the only free speech cried for by the "counter-jihadists" is for those critical of Islam yet they would happily see all Muslims silenced. Take the case of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for example, a case that is being pounded again and again at Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs, with links in both sidebars. Here is part of Spencer's take on the issue:

I have personally heard him sound much less cavalier and indifferent than this about this question, but ultimately that is immaterial. The whole purpose of free speech laws is to protect speech that the powerful find offensive, because it threatens their power. And that, as I explained above, is why this is happening.

He also once wrote in a national newspaper: "I've had enough of the Koran in the Netherlands: Forbid that fascist book."

"Forbid that fascist book"?!? This is a case for freedom of speech and expression? Why are they crying for free speech while supporting those who want to silence their own opposition? Ahh yes, base hypocrisy. Yet someone must call them on it, so here I am.