The retreat of British liberalism?
Civitas, 18 February 2009
The exclusion of the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders, from the UK has provoked a number of thought-provoking pieces, particularly in the Economist and the FT. His ideas, I hasten to add, attract absolutely zero sympathy from me – his views are extremist themselves and guilty, in particular, of distorting debate by portraying the most reactionary interpretations of Islam as being typical, when they are not – but, just as rules have now been passed against ‘incitement to violence’ etc., does the decision to exclude him not represent an unwillingness on the part of the political elite to defend civil liberty? What happened to the liberal idea of ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’?
Whether Mr Wilder’s interpretations are reactionary or not, is beside the point. He does not incite to violence but simply makes the point that the majority of terrorist acts over the last eight years (al least) were perpetrated in the name of Islam. In view of this fact I believe his banning from the UK is an illegal, and arbitrary, act. There is little doubt in my mind that Islam itself (no more than the Bible) is not responsible for terrorism (similar to ‘ guns don’t kill; people who use them do). It is those who hijacked Islam (in the way Nazis hijacked Wagner and Nietzsche) who perform the killing. And I put the blame entirely at the government door for the fact that it failed to isolate the fascist elements within Islam and deal with them in the way the perverted criminals should.
Mr Wilders’ interpretations are not reactionary. They are based on a realistic assessment of the dreadful menace that Islam poses to Western civilisation.
Do people who write articles as above really believe what they write?… Where does Wilders promote extremism as if typical? Sorry to intrude with some facts here too:
Some Muslim beliefs were actually measured by Sky in 2005, showing the great majority were against the London Bombings of that time, but 46% of young Muslims preaching hate were “NOT out of touch” with their own sentiments [1]. Three years on our Government are spending £80m to address the risks they perceive with Muslims becoming radicalised. Panorama uncover an undercurrent of accepted homophobia amongst Muslims [2] which would put the BNP to shame were the prejudice based on race. I understand some differences between Islam/Muslims but…. surely….
Wilders, writing within the context of our age, is clearly portraying the extremist element of Islam in a manner to gain attention to such sentiment. He genuinely believes this sentiment is unhealthy and wishes to see it challenged far more strongly. However, how does he otherwise make his case? He can’t exactly write a quiet letter to his MP and expect considered appraisal. Any public comment that offers perceived criticism of Islam (& a lacking Government response) are deemed as de-facto racist and illegal: destined to attract carte-blanche denial, counter-accusation and probable punitive measures.
In the face of this, Wilders has resorted to desperate “in for a penny, in for a pound” measures to promote his cause anyway, using a visual medium because it is has greatest impact and is hardest to deny. It is basic “Cause Marketing”.
To say he is “distorting” a debate”, though, is utter nonsense: There is no debate of note about this, because one side of it, rightly or wrongly, has been outlawed. His response is the evidence for this.
[1] http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200806413391671
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7889631.stm
It has been pointed out that when Salman Rusdie was harrassed for publishing his allegedly-anti-Islamic novel, 20 years’ ago, much of the “liberal” Western intelligentsia and Establishment supported him, often openly; but when Wilders came to show his film the same sort of people called him “extreme Right wing” (which he is not, apparently), and called for censorship; and it is asked exactly what has happened to the establishment and educated classes in the meantime? They have, of course, joined the trend of the Left Wing, via their opposition to Israel and anti-Semitism, in its drift towards supporting Islamicism (vide the unholy alliance of certain far-Left organisations with British Islamicist groups).
You imply, here, that “extrmist” Islamicism is not “typical” or normal – as so many of the “liberal” British establishment wish to believe, or to convince themselves – do you have hard evidence of the non-“extremist” norm of the majority?