Thanks to the Government’s ban, Mr Wilders - who allows no room for debate about his strident anti-Islamist views - could not be exposed for his own intolerance. He has instead claimed the moral high ground by calling the Government “cowards”. Even moderate Muslims seemed to play into his hands: the ban was supported by the Muslim Council of Britain.
If Mr. Wilders is as kooky as they say he is (and he just might be), then why isn't the Muslim world laughing at him and his ridiculous statements?
They're not, and that should give us pause.
Wilders is not advocating tolerance of the Muslim faith. Oh, no! He sees in Islam a civilizational threat to the free West, and one to be confronted, arrested, and defeated. Does this mean he must be known to us as an enemy of freedom?
Some would argue that it makes him a very dangerous enemy of freedom. Others, like Bruno Waterfield, say that while Wilders is no exponent of free speech, he still has a right to say his piece:
An elected European politician was invited by a British parliamentarian (albeit an unelected one) to speak in Westminster's House of Lords (albeit a chamber that should be scrapped).
There is a convention here, and it is an important one, that governments do not interfere in such contacts unless a threat to security is a clear and present danger.
Britain has smashed this convention to bits.
Indeed.
If you're curious about what Wilders was going to say to the British Parliament, you can read it on Diana West's blog. It is no very inspiring bit of statesmanship, but it makes an argument we should consider: if we would keep the West free, there are certain things we cannot tolerate, and Islam should join the ranks of Facism and Communism as being one of them.
Wilders may be wrong, certainly. But we should at least make it permissible to admit he may be right.
I think I'm going to re-read The Flying Inn, a fanciful 1914 novel by G.K. Chesterton. He, at least, understood that there was an enormous clash between Islamic and Western civilizations--and his novel was the grimly humorous result. Maybe Wilders should read it too. He'd have at least one companion in the form of Patrick Dalroy, I daresay. Though I fancy Dalroy was a smidge cleverer.
