If we are going to ban nasty foreigners, can we at least be consistent about it?

Stew

Rod,
As ever you sum up the situation pretty accurately and I find myself agreeing with you again and in fact probably 95% of the time overall. Why is it then we are opposites in the way we would vote (I assume that despite it all you would never be able to bring yourself to vote Tory)? As ever, it is the Labour govt that is anti-libertarian, autocratic and anti-democratic. Perhaps I am being naive but I believe that Dave is our best hope for regaining liberty, democracy and a reduction in the big govt that Britain desperately needs. If Labour wins the next election I will leave Britain and probably never return - assuming they haven't gone completely East German on us and closed the borders so that we can't get out. I served in the forces for 20 years and would have defended to the death my country because of its freedom and values. Not anymore. Vote Labour and you get what you deserve.

Richard

It wasn't a wallet, it was a five shilling postal order.

MikeF

The consistent principle that might be worth following would be to ban those who advocate violence, but not those who merely criticise cultures. Hence Wilders should have been let in, the Phelps lot should be turned away. But then again banning these Americans won't have any influence on voting patterns in marginal constituencies.

Augustus

Good article, except that Geert Wilders doesn't say some pretty strong things about Islam in his film, he lets the voices and writings of Islam do that for him.

Kate JL

"his updated crusade against the Mohammedans" - that's right, Rod.

The planet is being blown up from Bombay to Israel to Chechnya to Madrid, London, New York, the Philippines etc, so there's an updated jihad for the Caliphate but no 'crusade', which was merely an earlier generation's attempt at pre-empting what we have been so foolish as to allow to take root.

James Strong

Augustus just beat me to it; and I've just watched Fitna again to make sure that my memory was accurate.
Wilders says very little in the film.
It is undeniably anti-Islamic and it is undeniably accurate.
The huge majority of the language is direct quotes from the Koran and from Islamic preachers.
The quotes reveal the truth. Watch it.

And yes Rod, other than that mistake it's a good article.

CharlieRay15

Rod Liddle has to be seen as Auberon Waugh's true heir in exposing the cant and nonsense of modern Britain.

James Justice

"The play is called The Laramie Project and it is about a young American who is bullied because of his homosexual tendencies"

Rather more than bullied! He was tied to a fence, pistol whipped, tortured and left to die!

Agree with the article though - we either let them all in or ban them all.

At the time of writing this I see that Jackie Smith has decided not to let the Phelps in.

Harry O

Jacqui Smith bans a Dutch MP and some violent American Baptists but is unable to prevent millions of illegal immigrants entering the country or even deport the few thousand rounded up to date. Probably too busy filling in her expenses claims....
Truly, fiddling whilst Rome burns.

Sid

"Rod Liddle has to be seen as Auberon Waugh's true heir in exposing the cant and nonsense of modern Britain."

He totally ignores larger power structures at force in this world. What's REALLY wrong with this world, he totally ignores. Left winger, my arse.

"And the wrong cry out like wounds."

Harry O

Sid.
"And the wrong cry out like wounds."

I say! Steady, old chap. Do you really want Rod to say "Trust me, I'm a satirist" to us?

Herbert Thornton

The headline to Ron's piece reads - "If we are going to ban nasty foreigners, can we at least be consistent about it?"

I think that's misleading. Britain doesn't ban nasty foreigners - it consistently admits them.

Britain's inconsistency on the other hand certainly applies to decent foreigners - it admits some, and bans others - as the example of Geert Wilders shows.

Augustus and James Strong - I agree that Fitna tells the truth - and so does his other film - What The West Needs To Know.

Indeed I think that many people will find that What The West Needs To Know is even more informative than Fitna while being equally persuasive. It too (at least so far) can be accessed via the Internet.

Richard

"Uddererly devoid of principle".
Describes the "bovine" Jaqui Smith perfectly.

James R

What, Sid? And Bron Waugh was a raving Commie, was he?

Jamal Akhbar

My muslim trumps your gay. My game I think?

James

Why does the Spectator give away its content for free? Talk about devalue journalism - no wonder its an industry on its knees.

For years people never moaned about paying for quality journalism...

Richard Jones

"Jacqui Smith, our bovine Home Secretary, took the decision in order to placate that fairly swiftly diminishing number of British Muslims who do not understand the concept of freedom of speech"

"fairly swiftly diminishing" This is a very bold statement. Can I have some evidence of this please?

Alan

In much the same 'tongue in cheek' vein, were we not extremely lucky that dear Geert didn't come on a false passport and claim asylum? and in any event thank our lucky stars we could send him back to whence he came and Holland would be happy to receive him.

Mary Jackson

Oops - Rod Liddle is behind the times, or at least behind The Times. The Phelpses have been banned:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/19632

David Short

'That is not the point, of course. Jacqui Smith, our bovine Home Secretary, took the decision in order to placate that fairly swiftly diminishing number of British Muslims who do not understand the concept of freedom of speech'

Do you mean swiftly increasing?

I can't make sense of the sentence otherwise, or is it the effect of the two whiskies I have just drunk in quick succession after being annoyed that the subs on the 'Bright' column can't spell 'irresistible' in the headline.

The Speccie gets less 'literary' every week.

uberkafir

Spot on, Rod. Banning Wilders was not only a nauseating example of cowardice but final proof (if any were needed) that the Labour party has no coherent policy towards anything.

David Short

The decision was taken to placate the Muslim electorate in Labour constituencies in the North.

That's why George W. Bush was unsure about the instincts of Jack Straw because he was an MP hungry for Muslim votes in his northern constituency.

Glad to see the 'irresistable' schoolboy howler has been corrected overnight.

Kevin

Peter Tatchell is only "principled" in pursuit of a very unprincipled goal.

Were I to condemn the exploitation of another person's sexuality for a blatantly selfish (i.e. lustful) purpose - when sexuality has the person-centred purpose of adding to the human family - and were I to say that consent is no more relevant here than it is to the legality of duelling, Mr. Tatchell would I imagine, with a great sense of principle, cry, "Discrimination!".

"Men", I suspect he would say, "are just as capable of having non-procreative sex with women. Why are you singling out men who sleep with other men?".

The really principled argument, however, would be to agree that it is just as bad when men exploit women in this way (and vice versa).

Try challenging Mr. Tatchell in this manner - even just hypothetically. Then see how principled his response is.

David Jones

Kevin: "sexuality has the person-centred purpose of adding to the human family"

What justifies that bizarre assertion? Where is your evidence (don't say it's the bible, as the bible says no such thing)? Why ignore the fact that sex is extremely useful for purposes other than reproduction (e.g. expressing love, or creating physical joy)? Why ignore the fact that nature's (or God's) plan was clearly that it should be so? Why bring families into it? Why argue that, when a man and woman enjoy deliberately nonreproductive sex, one is exploiting the other? You know that that is not true, so why say it?

Tatchell's point is that gay men and women should not be discriminitated against in employment, civil rights, violent crime, age of consent, and so forth. Even if your silly principle were correct (which it clearly is not), he would still be right.

A. MacAulay

Yes, Kevin you have managed to say something so wrong that not even the opposite is true.