Aw, shame.

Now perhaps he knows how it feels to be an immigrant.

By Pip | February 12, 2009 3:42 PM

I am sure Mr Wilders is more than happy to play the victim of oppression, again. ;)

By Q | February 12, 2009 3:51 PM

I think it's outrageous that the Brits are sending him back. They should send him to Guantanamo where he would be the only person who is a genuine threat to all of our safety.

By Deep Throat | February 12, 2009 4:08 PM

The UK refuse entry to Geert Wilders, but allow entry to any terroist with or without extremist views.
Not only do they allow entry, the terrorists are allowed to live on benefits for the rest of their lives and get more in benefits than a British person, and they are allowed to preach their hatred.

Time for the EU to step in and sort this out once and for all, under the Human Rights act (Freedom of Movement).

By Karl H | February 12, 2009 4:29 PM

We must take off our collective rosy sun glasses and perhaps develop a little back bone. It would seem that those of us who are non-Muslim fundamentalists soil ourselves and cower in fear at the mere mention of the name Muslim. These slugs debase all that Western society has attempted to accomplish. Although imperfect, what is the choice we should make? Roll back the hands of time and live one step above cavemen? The elite are okay with this as long as they can stay in their mansions on the mount - what they fail to see is that there is a cave waiting for them just like the ones you and I will be forced into. Fundamentalist extremists have no place in Western Society. Their sole purpose is its downfall. We need a collective wake up call. These lunatics are not Western Civilization's friends. Non-Muslims who somehow perceive goodness in these psychotic followers of fundamentalist Islam are like lambs being led to slaughter. Thank goodness for Darwinism. Perhaps it’s simply the rule of natural selection at work. I've never embraced another who is holding a knife at my throat and called him brother. Has the collective bulk of Western Society been brain-washed to accept these fanatics into their homelands? Fundamentalist Islam is no different than any other extremist ideology that has reared its ugly head repeatedly over the millennia. Islam is intolerant to all but its mindless loyalist devotees.

By bob | February 12, 2009 5:12 PM

On January 15 this year Her Majesties Home Office launched a press campaign: 'New system, new rules'. Under the rules of the new bill, anyone wishing to apply for citizenship would have to live in the UK for five years, then spend an additional year proving they deserve citizenship. They could prove this by demonstrating they've been: working legally and supporting themselves, paying taxes, giving back to the community through volunteer work or learning to speak English (Mizta Geert personal version of the English language is an offence to the ears of native-English speakers or those who have studied it). Breaking the law, even with minor crimes, would lengthen application processes. Those who commit serious crime would face deportation.
Incitement to hatred is one such serious crime.

Under the new system, only citizens and permanent residents would have full access to benefits. An a non-subject of the Queen and the United Kingdom, Mr Wilders is treated with the same level of procedure as would any other commoner would be, as indeed any law-abiding alien would be treated in the same circumstances.

Under the motto "Proving their commitment", Home Office Minister Phil Woolas said those applying for citizenship should 'speak English, work hard, and earn the right to stay here - and only get British citizenship once they have proved their commitment to the country.'
He added, ''Migration only works if it brings benefits, and these measures will ensure that only those migrants who make a positive impact on their local community will be able to stay in the UK.'

The bill would also strengthen the country's security by giving UK Border Agency frontline staff combined customs and immigration powers - making it easier for them to crack down on illegal immigration and smuggling and to make swift deportations of undesirables. Geert Wilders often calls for stricter immigration laws and more regulations on the rights of peoples in their movement. However, now that Her Majesty's authorities have implemented new legal codes which enforce precisely the same powers that Mr Wilders has called for in his native country overseas where he is a citizen in the eyes of the law just like 'all' of his fellow countrymen (all of whom are aliens in Her Majesty's gaze), he flied there knowing Her Majesty's decision and flied in the face of the regulations he himself has repeatedly demanded.

I wonder to myself: what is the number that Her Majesty’s Border Agency authorities use to annotate in the alien’s register this person’s presence in the international temporary detention centre at Heathrow Airport on the fringes of London City?

One must not forget that economies across Europe are facing recession, and the value of Sterling has dropped considerably over the past months. It was revealed this week that more than £540,000 (€620,000) has been spent protecting President Mary McAleese on visits to Northern Ireland since 2005, it was revealed today. The PSNI Policing Board meeting this week also revealed last summer’s stop in the North by former US president George W Bush cost £306,000.
this is no funds available to secure the protection of a person who has been styled by sources in the British media as a talking, political personification of the criminally-murderous puppet, 'Chucky'. The bright, flowing, matted-hair combined with the allegedly criminal calls for hatred and totalitarianism.
This sort of nonsense really scared the authorities of a Kingdom which has never ever rounded up and deported huge numbers of its citizens for forced labour, malnourishment and ultimately, in some cases, gassing and incineration. These darker elements of society lie engrained in the consciousnesses of almost every European country with a Constitutional Court, and that included the Netherlands.
Whatever the jurisdiction, it happened here and not there. One may be excused for making the mistake of belittling this small, often overlooked fact.
Doctor W certainly makes this oversight, and chosen instead to pretend to himself and his audience that it does not exist. However, unlike his own imagination and ego, when Her Majesties authorities issue written refusal of leave to enter their jurisdiction... it "is" actually thé final re-solution of Her Majesty's authorities.
There is an appeals procedure and the upright & gentilé gentleman knows this. Why then, no statement on the appeal? Surely, when this is civily considered in the law, this next event will be billed "Geertje On Anglo-Island Tour: The Sequel".
I ask you Madam... will the T-Shirt this persona wears upon his return to his Fatherland read "Geschikt" of "Ongeschikt".

By Noel McCullagh-Winters | February 12, 2009 5:21 PM

At which point to people start to recognise what 'sovereign state' means? Britain or any country has the right to deny anybody from crossing its borders and it does, regularly. A quick search engine trawl will show hundreds of cases of places like Canada, the US, Israel, all refusing entry to individuals wanting access.

Can we start an intelligent discussion please? Here is the topic "What has Geert Wilders or his party actually done for the Netherlands recently?" (Hint: if they stick to the Free-Speech-but-not-for-Koran-readers election ticket, nobody will notice that they do b*gger all else around here)

By osita | February 12, 2009 5:26 PM

Wilders is an extremist. He wants extremist banned. Now he is banned himself - serves him well.
But he is too stupid to see the logics !!

By Nelly D | February 12, 2009 5:28 PM

It's a total disgrace that the UK government banned this guy from entry. The whole point of FREE SPEECH is to protect the rights of people whose views are not mainstream. They've denied him that right and also the right of free movement within the EU for EU citizens.
The UK admits plenty of islamist and other extremists. Remember the Afghan hijackers who threatened passengers with guns, knives & grenades & subsequently got rights to UK residency and millions of pounds in benefits?
Wilders on the other hand threatened no-one and broke no laws. THAT's why it's disgraceful that they banned him. A total abuse of power.
The government was just cravenly appeasing extremists in Britain, fearing that they'll get violent if views other than their own are aired. A very dangerous and oppressive strategy.
Totally unjustifed. Wilders should take the UK to court for infringing his right to free movement and his right to free speech.

By cath | February 12, 2009 5:38 PM

More he is dirty, more he wants to play to mister clean and then he tries to make the others also dirty.

Thank you English autorities; like that must be treated all kind of Racists and Islamophobes people.

He must learn how to RESPECT the Islam and the Moslems.

Again, thank you Enlish autorities , no place more for this kind of people.

Stop de hatred tsunami , and keep the United Kingdom kleen

By Azeddine Lairini | February 12, 2009 6:06 PM

A big applause to British government. It is all about double standarts and hypocrisy. Just take the words of Wilders, replace "muslims" with "jews", "Koran" with "Torah", make this an open speech and start choosing beds from one of the worst prisons in this country. You can hardly find a lawyer. Again, Brits showed the Netherlanders what does "respect" and "honour" mean.

By O Savas | February 12, 2009 7:25 PM

Hi There!
I am a South African whose fellow non white citizens were subjected to apartheid by the Afrikaners of Dutch descent and of the Dutch Reform Church. I want to flip the argument....what if I created a video clip of Dutch people killing non white people, segregating people, stealing their land, etc,etc. Basically replacing his video with the Dutch atrocities in South Africa and then ask the Dutch authorities to play this video in the Dutch parliament and then claim all Dutch people are racists and murderers..Would they agree?????

By FREESA | February 12, 2009 8:31 PM

I am British and am ashamed at our government's treatment of Geert Wilders.

I am an Islamasceptic having seen in up close and personal in Saui Arabia.

To your other posters, if you think Islam is a pleasant ideology I respectfully suggest you take your wife with you and go and see if it's as peaceful and free as Holland.

By Peter Taylor | February 12, 2009 8:38 PM

"Just take the words of Wilders, replace "muslims" with "jews", "Koran" with "Torah", make this an open speech and start choosing beds from one of the worst prisons in this country."

Speaking of Nazi propaganda, have you actually read any of the koran or hadith?

Most of the islamic teaching regarding the "infidels" bears a striking resemblance to the sort of thing that was said about the Jews by the Nazis. In fact the way the koran refers to Jews IS the same as what the Nazis said about them. If you don't believe me read it for yourself (if you can stomach it).

Here is a little sampler:

"4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them"

(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)

"I invite [those] who haven't read the Quran to simple read the book. Take out a highlighter and highlight those lines that counsel the believer to despise infidels, and you will find a book that is just covered with highlighter."-- Sam Harris

If the catholic church were to go back to their inquisition antics of threatening or even murdering "heretics" (not to mention their disgusting centuries long pogrom against Jews), and justify it based on the nasty bits of the bible, would we be racist for pointing out that their theology might need a little revision?

By Franchesca | February 12, 2009 9:38 PM

Whatever the general consensus is about Mr. Wilders, what the UK did on this day was to ban freedom of speech via refusal to make land. I've followed some of his radical views, and surely his film was tame in comparison to his outburst. It was actually quite boring, with no new content that hasn't been broadcast by any media outlet around the world. Opposers are using it as a thread to hang onto. Condemn a man for his actions, but let them be the right ones. Next you'll not be able to complain about what day your trash is collected.

By Michael | February 13, 2009 6:45 AM

The fact remains, The British "invited him" to their country. He didn't invade their space. I believe strongly in free speech, even if many (maybe most)people say stupid or hurtful things. We have the right to listen or ignore these words. Usually ignoring them gets the best results as it doesn't fuel them. Although, those in high government positions should learn to choose their words carefully as they are our representatives.

By AW | February 13, 2009 8:16 AM

Whatever the general consensus is about Mr. Wilders, what the UK did on this day was to ban freedom of speech via refusal to make land - Im sorry but thats just wrong people are banned from entering the UK for whatever legal reasons and if you dont believe check the bbc or the home office for a full list - No-one complained when they banned a radical Mullah or a homophobic reggae star; why then do people start banging the drum about freedom of speech over this self-publicising bigot; more the point why are the Dutch Government giving off about him being refused entry when they themselves intend to prosecute him for the very offence the British have refused him entry for?

By TAD | February 13, 2009 10:44 AM

Who is talking about Free Speech?

Where is that at issue?

The video production was shown in the Westminster Houses of Parliament, however, without the promotional movie "producer" being present.

In this day and age, if one wishes to air their opinions then they do so: in a movie, on YouTube, in an article in a publication.

This is Free Speech, and Mr W uses his right to free speech overtly. not only are his inflammatory statements heard, but they are heard and reported from a number of different angles as there are usually video-cameras in multiplicity whenever his press-gang are summoned to digest the most recent outburst or stage-show.

The very fact that all of us are here discussing this undesirable's latest stagéd event is because of Free Speech.
Mr W has been speaking freely about his "trip" since last Monday. Moreover, whenever the cameras of his press-gang start to roll, the first words that he spits from his Germanic mouth are "Vrijheid van meningsuiting".

The refusal to grant leave to enter Her Majesty's territories specifically stated to Dr W why he was not being granted leave. It also outlined to Dr W what are his appeals procedures.

By not reporting to his press-gang (|and ergo to the public domain|) that there 'is' a law-abiding and civil means open for appeal against Her Majesty's officials' decisions in the matter of his persona being permitted to set foot in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland territories and jurisdiction, Mr Wilders is not only flying in the face of free speech, but he is also muffling the attempts of Her Majesty's agents and officials to explain the legal codes and regulations governing such matters in Her Majesty's judiciary.

By 'not' reporting and making public the appeals procedure set before him in minister Smith's letter of Monday 09 Feb, it is Mr Geertje Wildersje who is not respecting both Free Speech 'and' the right of the public to receive "all of the facts of the matter" while he wilfully and actively stirs-up racial and ethnic tensions in his home, native, (and for all intents and purposes) ‘Germanic’, Fatherland.

By Noel McCullagh-Winters | February 13, 2009 12:35 PM

That's right, forgot the UK is not part of the European Union. Not matter how construed, the action was a political fiasco designed to appease a minority interest (could be applied to both sides of the discussion). Sorry for the mistake. When it's borders are boiling over with people that HAVE been allowed to enter, maybe The Netherlands should return the favor.

By Michael | February 13, 2009 9:13 PM