ARTICLE 19 Calls Upon UK Government to Lift Travel Ban on Dutch MP

Support Fitna and its maker Geert Wilders
(Fitna is available in the Internet, anybody can download it.Just use Google search or other search engine, you can see also the other documents and proof how Islam treating non-Islamic people - the horrific bloodshed and genocide. Every miscreation and horrendous attack done by Islam leave recorded/ written marks, these are history. Seeing / viewing history time and again is no offence. Its sheer covert conspiracy by the government support ban, Common people should defend Freedom of Expression )


If we do not hold our head high and straight now it will be too late. Already our tolerance and patience for human rights had given the enemies of Human kind a wrong signal that we , the defenders of Human rights are easily cowered and put in silence. Those People supporting and manipulating terrorism in the name of Islam are marked enemies of mankind. If the Government of different nations and countries and welfare organisations of Human Rights in all nations and countries under any religious faith fail to fight face to face all the covert Islamic terrorists , their covert agents/ representatives and open jihadists very soon the whole world will face bloodshed, genocide. This is my fear originated from the watch and observation from last decades. Those come forward to ban Fitna do they claim the documentary is false? do they promise the islamic terrorism will not happen anymore? What sorts of safety we have to protect ourselves from Islam at large? and their network? All ready Taliban and alquida started killing in middleeast and south Asia. Its a global concern and anxiety.
This is my plea to be bold at the point or border where Freedom of Expression and Human rights are under sacnner and violated. Defend Freedom of Expression at any cost. It is good for liberal Muslims also or Muslim world will go to hell by the cause of Islamic terrorists for whom they blindly and covertly support. In MiddleEast and South Asia where poverty, iliteracy and religious superstitions are the capital for exploitation by religious fanatics.
Like 'Fitna' there are lots and lots documents are available in the internet/ web and private collections of of organisations. Why Fitna is slected? It is sheer conspiracy to show terrorism. The more we avoid and fear the more victory the Islamic fanatics and terrorists count. Have you seen how numerous grass eating animal run in fear when they see one carnivorous animal? Numerous peaceloving people try to avoid any bloodshed, but they are being killed day by day.Avoiding is not answer. The whole world are against the attackers of Freedom of Expression. the surging insult and humiliation to non Islamic nations by Islamic terrorists , organisations is growing like big Bang and awaiting for blast. Do our defenders like UN security councils, Europe and America playing games staking our lives?

My plea to all save this world from bloodshed and defend our open voice through Article 19 ,Universal declaration of Human rights. -- by Respectable.

ARTICLE 19 Calls Upon UK Government to Lift Travel Ban on Dutch MP
ARTICLE 19 considers that the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “Secretary of State”) to ban Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, from travelling to the UK on the basis that “his statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK” is in contravention with international and European human rights law on freedom of expression and should be reversed.

In a letter to Mr Wilders dated 10 February 2009, the UK Border Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State states that his “presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society”. Mr Wilders, who will face prosecution in the Netherlands for inciting hatred following the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal last month, was due to attend a screening of his controversial film Fitna in the House of Lords. ARTICLE 19 argues that the decision of the Secretary of State was unjustified and should be reversed for the following reasons:First, in our opinion, the restriction on Mr Wilders’ entry does not meet standards contained in international and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) law on permissible restrictions to freedom of expression.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) provides that restrictions on freedom of expression on national security grounds can only be imposed if they “are provided by law and are necessary … for the protection of national security”.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) provides that restrictions on freedom of expression must not only be “prescribed by law” but also must be “necessary in a democratic society … in the interests of national security…public safety, for the prevention of disorder …or for the protection of the rights of others …” amongst other legitimate aims (emphasis added). We question whether Mr Wilders’ presence in the UK really would have posed a threat to public order. Security in and around Parliament might have been shored up for Mr Wilders’ visit had a threat been identified. The restriction was not necessary in a democratic society: there are no convincing and compelling reasons to justify the travel ban to the UK based on Mr Wilders’ statements. Indeed, the democratic values of “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness” that underpin the system of the ECHR involve the protection of expression even when it is offensive, shocking or disturbing. We also contend that Mr Wilders’ statements do not represent “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society” as required by section 21 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. We argue that this provision must be read compatibly with the criteria for legitimate restrictions on Article 10 ECHR. Second, we acknowledge that limitations on freedom of expression may be imposed in order to protect equality: a restriction to freedom of expression may be imposed to protect “the rights of others” under Article 10 ECHR; and Article 20(2) of the ICCPR requires states to proscribe any “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. However, we believe that the denial of Mr Wilders’ entry into the UK fails to fulfil the criteria for legitimate restrictions on the freedom of expression indicated above. The protection of the right to equal treatment of others could have been achieved through less intrusive means, such as by simply ensuring there was sufficient advocacy on equality issues at or around the time of the showing of the film.

Furthermore, it is our view that permitting Mr Wilders entry into the UK would not have been in contravention of the UK’s obligations under Article 20(2) ICCPR. International human rights law does not oblige states to impose travel restrictions on individuals who have expressed previously racist views or who have produced racist material. The film Fitna does not constitute “incitement” under Article 20 ICCPR, even though it advances a racist point of view. The film, which remains available on the internet to anyone who wishes to view it, was to be shown in the House of Lords rather than a setting (such as a meeting of a racist right-wing group) where it would have been actually possible to stir up racial incitement.Third, Mr Wilders’ exclusion from the UK is not only contrary to ECHR law and the requirements of the ICCPR, but is also counterproductive to the aims of those who oppose Mr Wilders’ views as well as one of the grounds for the exclusion – the protection of “community harmony”. Whilst Mr Wilders’ views as they are expressed in Fitna are clearly offensive to some, the result of the decision of the Secretary of State is to bring a higher level of publicity for his views than had it been the case if he had been permitted to enter the UK, and also and potentially to attract more support for the racist views he advances.

The exclusion will also discourage free debate and open discussion on important issues involving religion, Islam in particular, and is likely to polarise individuals from different religious and ethnic communities in the UK. Had Mr Wilders been allowed into the UK, his views could have been more directly challenged by UK-based equality and human rights advocates and bodies as well as by UK politicians, as part of a broader debate on religion, racism, intolerance and/or the limits of hate speech in Europe. ARTICLE 19's position is that intercultural understanding will bloom and strengthen within a society where speech, even if it is offensive, is permitted, provided it does not amount to incitement to hatred. In such an environment, the voices of political leaders against racist expressions and racism should be heard loud and clear.

FURTHER INFORMATION: • For more information: please contact Sejal Parmar, Senior Legal Officer: sejal@article19.org +44-207-278 9292,

Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

on the Danish Cartoon Controversy
Alexandr Vondra: "Radical Islam Poses a Major Challenge to Europe"
Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands
by Brooke M. Goldstein and Aaron MeyerAmerican SpectatorJanuary 22, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/article/2053

On Wednesday, freedom of speech in Europe took a new and devastating turn, as a Dutch appellate court ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, parliamentarian and filmmaker, charging him with "inciting hatred and discrimination" against Muslims for his film exposing the threat of radical Islam.
This ruling comes a mere six months after the public prosecutor's office found Wilders' dialogue contributed to the debate on Islam and that he had not committed any criminal offense. Now, curiously, the court has done an about-face and decreed that charges may be brought against the politician, and that prosecuting him is somehow in "the public interest."
After releasing a ten-minute self-produced film entitled "Fitna," Wilders found himself wound up in a litany of "hate speech" litigation, one such suit filed by a radical Imam asking for 55,000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings.
Ironically, the film's narrative is primarily comprised of quotes from the Koran which incite violence and death to "infidels" as well as scenes of an Imam preaching death to the Jews. Akin to something out of the Twilight Zone, the Imams who routinely spout hate speech from the pulpit and who are instigating these suits are never themselves charged with incitement to immediate violence. Moreover if the film "Fitna," which merely quotes the Koran and depicts angry Imams, is "hate speech" then what is the Koran itself?
Suspiciously, the wording of the appellate court's ruling strongly echoes public criticism made by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) when the earlier prosecution was dropped, where the OIC censured prosecutors for ignoring the "thin line separating freedom of speech and the instigation of hatred, animosity and discrimination."
Even more disturbing is that the State of Jordan, most likely acting as a stalking horse for the OIC, has issued a request for Wilders' extradition to stand trial in Jordan for blasphemy of Islam, a crime for which Shari'a law declares the penalty to be death. The Dutch parliament has taken the extradition request very seriously, and has shut out Wilders from all multi-lateral negotiations. As a precaution, Wilders no longer travels abroad unless he can obtain a diplomatic letter from the destination state promising he won't be extradited. For years now, Wilders has lived under looming death threats complemented by the threat that any day, Interpol might issue a warrant for his arrest at Jordan's behest.
Mistakenly, Wilders had thought that his own country remained true to democratic ideals, despite cases such as that of the cartoonist Gregorious Nekschot, who was arrested on May 13, 2008, by Dutch police for the criminal offense of "publishing cartoons which are discriminating for Muslims and people with dark skin."
The very notion that a judge could weigh a man's freedom of speech against what the court construed as "one-sided generalizations" is an absurd and dangerous misrepresentation of the very concept of free speech. However, that pales in comparison to the fact that a democratically elected and sitting member of government is going to be prosecuted for a thought crime for speaking to his constituents about matters of national security. In Iran dissdents are routinely arrested for holding opposing political views. Now we are seeing the same tactics being employed in Europe, but this time, enacted by Western governments at the behest of Islamist groups and against their own citizens.
WIlders' "crime" is what the OIC has been working to criminalize on a global level through the United Nations, while advocating the punishment of Westerners who speak out against radical Islam, terrorism, and its sources of financing. It is clear that the OIC's successes in the United Nations -- where the General Assembly passed its "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolution last year -- are already resulting in direct action.
This is no victory for the Netherlands, or for anyone -- save the OIC and Islamo-fascists. The damage being done to free speech, however, is a defeat that will be felt everywhere. When members of a democratic country's legislature can be arrested and tried for expressing ideas that some find objectionable, that country's status as a free and fair democracy is in serious doubt. But while the Dutch will have to come to grips with their government's abject failure to uphold basic principles of human rights, the leaders of other nations must take notice as well.
The OIC has power and influence, and "hate speech" laws provide an extremely malleable tool to silence critics of radical Islam -- even if you are a member of a parliament, or indeed, perhaps, eventually, a member of Congress. Whatever pressure may be brought on the Netherlands to counteract the OIC's influence must be brought to bear. For if Geert Wilders is tried and sentenced, it will establish the precedent Islamists have been striving for -- and one day, none of us will be free to speak out against them.

------------------------------------------Comment------by Albert Ashok
The time has come for the world leaders who support Freedom of expression, and International covenant of human rights, to confront the truth, whether they are stable on their ground and can defend it truly or they are under the threat of Islamic sharia law. Let this fight and war surface.
If Judges see Fitna and Danish cartoon are absurd and dangerous misrepresentation of the very concept of free speech then the common people in non Islamic nations and religion would be offended and they would be provoked by the actions of muslims. In India, What Maqbul Fida Hussain has been doing for 3 decades could be an example. Maqbul fida hussain has crossed his line long ago still we have respects on him. Why people would bend their heads to a specific religion? Why Muslims roam free and spreading all over the globe? They don’t have the right to witness the thing they don’t like. After all they are not our guardians. What is next?

The UN character is going under suspicion. Is it eaten by Islam? Who rules it? OIC? Is it violating its own principles? We are frustrating to have the clear answer.

I hope judges are not under the threat of Muslim attacks. If they are then let them leave their judges seat.
The right time has come to defend freedom of expression boldly, or perish under the Islamic threat or bombs. The decision and resolution should be transperant.
----------------------------
Brooke M. Goldstein is a practicing attorney, the director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and the director of the Children's Rights Institute. She is also an award-winning film producer of The Making of a Martyr, an adjuct fellow at the Hudson Institute, and the 2007 recipient of the E. Nathaniel Gates Award for Outstanding Public Advocacy. Aaron Meyer is the assistant director of The Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and legal correspondent at the Terror Finance