Geert Wilder should not have been banned from the UK

Now, this is ridiculous.

Is the UK for "free speech" or not? Exactly what are the boundaries? Looking at my last post, I think it's pretty obvious that there are some pretty woolly thinkers in the powers-that-be that regulate free speech in the UK (yes, oh come on, "free" speech is regulated everywhere).

Wilder's video, as I have said in earlier posts, doesn't actually contain any fabrications or lies.

It contains statements and multimedia equivalents (ie. videoclips) taken out of context. Wilder has not invented statements from the Koran; he's merely extracted them for his own purposes.

Similarly, the videoclips were not staged for Wilder's camera; so, unlike the proverbial fire in the cinema, cited by a "brilliant" minister of Her Majesty's august government (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.") - as an example of a situation where the UK government would not allow the freedom of speech to prevail, there IS repeat IS a fire here - there is no lie in that sense. The statements Wilder actually made in Fitna are "true" - no fabrications.

The only dispute is over what you, the listener, make of that fire - is it the kind of fire that makes you run for the exit, ie. you agree with Wilder, or the kind of fire you will simply stand on to put out, ie. Wilder is exaggerating or otherwise putting the wrong spin on the observable facts.

In other words, the proper response was to allow plenty of equal time for Wilder's opponents to justify their stand.

Banning him shouts one thing loud and clear: there is no effective or proper logical response to Wilder that will appeal to the listener's good sense; Wilder is essentially correct in what he says, and therefore the only way to win the argument with Wilder is to shut him up and deny him the right to put his views across instead of replying him point for point.

Let's put my point another way, linking back to my earlier post: if saying God Doesn't Exist is not a violation of norms where freedom of speech in the UK is concerned, what exactly is wrong with saying that the Muslim God is a God of Violence? I mean, in neither case is anyone saying: Kill All the God-Believers, or, Kill All the Muslims, although that may or may not be an implication from the statement. It is merely another opinion, no? Why allow one and ban the other? Is the lobby group against Wilder more powerful than the lobby group against Atheists, and therefore more successful? Is this the real truth behind the matter, Mr Miliband? Is the deciding factor exactly who and how many you think might be offended by the statement rather than the quality of the statement itself?