It has nothing to do with freedom of speech but simply the British laws were inadequate to allow the hate-mongers and bigots into the country.

By Solkhar | October 16, 2009 4:14 PM

I should have added, of course, that the inadequate law in the UK is also the reason why there are hate-mongering and dangerious radicals there as well, let alone that in my country that feed people like Wilders.

By Solkhar | October 16, 2009 4:15 PM

How unfortunate is that 'mijn landgenoot' Mr.Geert Wilders cares for the freedom of speech but not his fellow human beings!

Let me call this a "failure of the moral values and an unfortunate incident for the British Public"!

The decision of the British government not to allow Mr.Wilders was a very appreciable one and was definitely in the interest of UK and her citizens.

What a 'controversial statement of Mr.Wilders by saying " his aim was not to insult anyone but to defend freedom"!
Since last few years he have been not leaving any opportunity for the 'Islam Bashing'by hurting millions of the Muslims attacking on the prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H.

I don't know if Mr.Wilders is aware of what does 'freedom means. For me freedom means "live and let live",respect of the choice of religious practices,not to attack any one's religion,or cultural identity.

He will have to surrender in favour of decent,democratic society by rejecting hate,negative criticism,while remembering the ultimate results of those who wanted to rule using 'nationalism'.

I really hope he would consult his 'conscious and positive energy(I am sure he have,like any one else) to become a 'champion of universal human rights' and not the champion of nationalism.

By Khalid Ahmed Chaudry | October 16, 2009 4:43 PM

victory for free speech yes but it doesnt change the fact that he is a racist scumbag, we dont want him in the UK we have enough bigots of our own, like the bnp

By adhd | October 16, 2009 4:56 PM

Freedom of speech right !!!!! Let me give you some of mine: this moron wilders (wild person, no control, out of his fricking mind) preaches hate, racism violence...should not be allow to enter any country in my opinon , in fact he should get the hell out of this universe...now see if this gets print.. for freedom of speech sake.

By zen | October 16, 2009 8:24 PM

Once again, I correct your English. Wildrs is not "anti-immigration" but merely opposes non-western immigration into Holland. Many European-Americans would like to move to Holland for it's greater freedom related to Cannabis.

Wilders also is not a native speaker of English; so occasionally his remarks in English are unclear. His call for the Koran to be banned is conditional; "IF" Mein Kampf is banned, so should the Koran be (for the same reasons).

Also, Wilders is not a consistent libertarian, but like most, has eclectic ideology. Unfortunately not all are Ayn Rand scholars.

By Kevin | October 16, 2009 8:51 PM

Wilders is a true Dutch patriot.His views on immigration into Holland are right on the mark, and many people agree with him. However, where some of his fans disagree is his villification of ALL Moslems. Radical Islamists are repugnant to all civilized people everywhere. The majority of Muslims, though, probably are decent, normal human beings who just want to live their lives as they see fit, and not hurt anybody.

By richard | October 16, 2009 11:00 PM

Wilders and his Zionist paymaysters are nothing more than the Teletubbies of politics.
Why do you give them oxygen?

By plo | October 16, 2009 11:16 PM

Strange, not one comment about the terrorists protesting him in London. I prefer a fool like Wilders to Sharia law in Europe (which is what the signs of the protesters read).

By Mark | October 17, 2009 8:58 AM

Many vilify Wilders but his "followers" will never step on a bus and blow themself and everyone else up, they WILL integrate into society and will not roam the streets of Amsterdam beating up gays!
Yes, a victory for not only free, but lucid speech

By bet | October 17, 2009 10:11 AM

This is an example of abusing the right called "Freedom of speach". It doesnt take a genious to see that that it is not Widlers who is dangerous but everyone else who supports him.

By Thrasos | October 17, 2009 4:45 PM

In Islam it has clearly mentioned that when a Muslim lives in a non Islamic country she/ he must follow the low of that country. If the low of certain countries are not acceptable by some radicals then let them leave, let them go to more conservative countries such as Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc… because they are spoiling it for the rest of normal Muslims. They are as bad as Wielders, actually they are weird like him but with black beards and scruffy clothing’s. Both Wielder and The Radicals are two side of the same coin.

Freedom of speech by Wilder’s definition is not correct!!! What it means that if I speak you have to listen. This guy must find some thing ells to do otherwise he is going to spoil the Netherlands by his “Freedom of Speech”. The same goes for the radicals

By Al | October 18, 2009 8:30 AM

It's a victory for hysterical speech only.

By CW | October 18, 2009 9:30 AM

Follow everything about Wilders and you're only lead into the the wilderness!!!

By Vreemdeling | October 18, 2009 9:42 AM

Criticism of Wilderian philosophy

Ancient Athenians believed that the power of persuasion is the most enduring force in a culture, one that must not, and can not be stifled. Alongside Islamic ethics, democratic ideology of free speech emerged in the later 6th- or early 7th Century BC.

During this period, one of the common definitions for "Islamic philosophy" was "the style of a reproducing doxa within the framework of Islamic culture."

From the 7th Century onwards, Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism were mirrored upon Islamic Culture and through lively debates; Avicennism established itself as a result.

In this definition and up until the 11th Century, Islamic philosophy was neither necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor considered as esoterically produced by Muslims.

From the 11th Century and in reference to ‘The Incoherence of the Philosophers’ (Tahāfut al-Falāsifa, تهافت الفلاسفة), Sufi sympathetic Imam Al-Ghazali (Algazel) of the Asharite school of Islamic theology criticisized the Avicennian school of early Islamic philosophy. The school’s twenty Chapter book is famous for proposing and defending the Asharite theory of occasionalism. Herein, the Asharite School defends the laws by which God chooses to govern his own behaviour (his autonomy, in the strict sense) over the established will and understanding represented by collective thought.

Up until today and with little critical reception, the Asharite doctrine dominates a camp within Islamic thought. Through its continued translation of the inferiority of human understanding as opposed to the strength of faith, its advocacies fence with the notion that Al-Ghazali is precursor to Søren Kierkegaard's Either/Or or Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Contemporary Islamic doctrine maintains a hidden but lively debate on cultural contradictions with thoughts of philosophers about God and the universe and represent advocating- and opposing camps within an esoteric frame.

In alignment with John Stuart Mill, Mr. Wilders represents his freedom of speech as constitutional- and civil right on a multi-faceted level that that includes the right to seek-, receive- and impart information and ideas.

However controversial and short sighted his expression of ideas are, Wilders and his followers make an appeal to the Islamic community in the Netherlands for participation in the ongoing debate and request imparting his community on how freedom of speech and -expression is translated through the logic of Islamic Culture.

On a closing note and in order to understand Wilderian thought of logic, I hereby would like to make an appeal to his camp of advocacies and introduce two novels; Ibn Tufail’s ‘Philosophus Autodidactu’s wherein views on Sufism and expression of critical thought towards Avicennism are shared and; Ibn al-Nafis who in answer wrote the novel ‘Theologus Autodidactus’ defending some of al-Ghazali's views.

Robert Mutsaers

By Robert Mutsaers | October 18, 2009 6:57 PM

@ Mark. I think you'll find the word 'terrorist' applies to people with criminal intentions: you appear to have mixed this up with the word 'protester' who is a person who uses their freedom of speech to publically agree or disagree with something or someone. Just because their views oppose yours does not mean they have less right than you to say it.

By osita | October 18, 2009 7:37 PM

No Osita, I think anyone who advocates for Sharia Law or the Caliphate in Europe is clearly a terrorist.

By Mark | October 19, 2009 7:10 AM

There is no difference b/w Wilder's freedom of speech and Taliban's Sharia Law and Hitler's Hatred for Jews. All three of them as the element of extremism, racism and desire for power (political, religous, economical)

By Meh | October 19, 2009 8:40 AM

Hate feeds hate and then we end up in another world war. Europe has not learned from it´s past.

By sandra | October 19, 2009 11:09 AM

Kevin, I am Dutch and Wilders language is clear enough - he is a bigot for numerious reason.

No need for others to make comparisons of the past or past individuals - we are talking about Europe and The Netherlands of today - Wilders is thus is a bigot and a hate-monger.

For those whom wish to declare Wilders as being some patriot, risking his life and a master of freedom of speech "not matter what" (as he said), remember this:

He singles out one religios community from others and thus is a bigot.

He avoids debate in all formats declaring safety, even though he has opportunity enough inside the Chambers of Parliament - which is safe - but he does not. When he does appear at events, it is based on "no questions" unless "pre-approved".

His claiming that he is a champion of and will defend "freedom of speech and expression no matter what" is a hoax. Why? Because 1. His party has no freedom within it, his leadership is not allowed to questioned, the platform as well and he wants senate candidates but advertises for them, as his party members are not welcome. Most of all, earlier this year there was the issue of "holocaust denial" and guess what - he did not say a word because he would be obliged to allow it and defend the right to do so and yet he did not. - He did not want to defend his friends and backers - in Israel.

He is due his time in court and we all should hope that after that he is out of the picture and politics for good, fined and be sure he will end up in a kabootz running a nasty blog.

By Solkhar | October 19, 2009 5:26 PM

No difference between Wilders speech and Sh aria Law ? What an inaccurate and untrue remark! Ridicule and slander Wilders and what happens to you? (you get cheered) Do the same to Mohammed under Sharia Law and your head gets rolled (literally) No difference? Get real!

By bet | October 19, 2009 8:10 PM

It is always funny to see muslims talking about the need to "respect the choice of religious practices,not to attack any one's religion."

Perhaps Muslims should read the Quran and see what it says about other religions. I am not talking about the 8 verses that are nice, but the hundreds that teach hate and violence. Or better yet, maybe they should read the hadith (Islam's own traditions), about how their dear prophet attacked, murdered, plundered, tortured, enslaved and raped non-Muslims.

Islam and the Western concepts of freedom and equality are incompatible.

Muslims must shut this man up because they cannot counter his logic and facts.

By j. kactuz | October 19, 2009 8:33 PM