Law

Preview

Geert wilders is a politician from the Netherlands and is the leader of the Party for Freedom. He has publicly spoken on a variety of issues, including the Islamic beliefs, which he loathes, immigration and freedom of speech. In 2008, he released a film about the Islamic religion in the Netherlands, which has caused the international controversy because of the amount of hate it expresses to the Muslims.

One of the most high profile incidents connected with him was his ban from entering the United Kingdom, early this year in February 2009, because the Home Office viewed his presence as a threat to one of the societys fundamental interests. Home Secretary Jacquie Smith labeled Wilders as an undesirable person, denied his entering the UK after the premiere of his Fitna film at the Westminster Palace on February 12, 2009.

The European and the UK Human Rights Standards

This ban to start with was a violation of the human rights of Geert wilders because there are no international provisions that allowed the ban to take place. The relevant UK human rights standards did not stand in the way of Mr. Wilders of getting into UK and the international EU provisions on human rights still show that Mr. Wilders was not a persona non grata who deserved that kind of human rights violations.

Was this ban imposed in accordance with the EU and the UK human rights standards The right to enter the country was denied with regard to the regulation 19 of the European Economic Area on immigration that allows the states within EU to deny entry to personalities that are considered to be a threat to the health, welfare, security and public policy of the state (Steiner, L, et al, 2007). The UK laws prohibit extremism of all forms, and Wilders was considered to be a religious extremist, who would pose a security threat in the country, especially, due to the incitement he would raise amidst the British Islam community.

From a legal perspective, the ban does not seem logical, because by any standards, Wilders does not belong to dangerous extremists, and the common viewpoint is that the British government acted this way not because of legal implications, but to appease the Muslim community in Britain. The reason for this is that Wilders had visited the UK in 2008 and there were no problems concerning this visit, though he was still a vocal person, especially, on his anti-Islamic stance. Wilders defied the ban and entered the UK via Heathrow airport on the 12th of February 2009, but was apprehended and glowed back to the Netherlands.
The British media, the British secular society also did not support the ban citing the lack of clear laws both in the UK and the EU immigration ones, that made wilders eligible for the ban but the state secretary responded by adding the hate speech laws of the UK saying that Wilders was an extreme preacher of hate (Steiner, L, et al, 2007). In my opinion, the move to ban Wilders from entering the UK did not have a legal foundation or support both under the UK and the EU immigration laws, because Wilders was expressing his freedom of speech in a manner that does not make him a persona non grata, but the problem was that his freedom to speak his mind and state his beliefs did not go well with some quarters in Britain, who were out to appease a minority community rather than interpret both the EU and the UK laws appropriately.

Hate Speech vs. Freedom of Expression

According to the UK laws, hate speech engenders racial hatred and a person can be denied into the country on the basis of the aforementioned crime. However, International EU provisions do not address the issue of hate speech and thus a clash arises between the UK and the EU provision. The UK 1986 public order act, part 3 addresses expressions that can engineer racial hatred. According to that act, racial hatred is hatred against a grouping on the basis of their nationality, religion, race or color. A person, who poses threats, insults, and abuses or displays any behavior or attitude that may stir up racial hatred, is guilty of an offence and shall receive a jail sentence or strict fines (Alistair, 2007).

In the case of Wilders, a controversy arises, because, on one hand, the laws give the freedom of speech, but, on the other hand, they can also limit your freedom of speech by labeling your speech as hate one. The question that remains unanswered in the midst of this controversy is what level of expression can be construed to be a hate speech. Wielders had the right to express what he believes about the Muslim community. If there is something that he does not like about them, then he is free to voice it out so long as he doesnt insult or threaten the people that he does not like. In reference to the British anti-hate laws, Wilders did not do anything illegal, because his speech didnt have abuses or threats it was a plain speech that was interpreted to be as hate one by those, who used a lopsided perspective to approach the issue of wielders vs. the Muslims.

However, the Home Office was convinced that the presence of Wilders in the UK would inflame tensions because of his perceived attitude towards the community. This is not connected with the anti-hate speech laws, because there is a difference between the presence and the speech.

The presence belongs to the realm of the immigration laws, while the speech is under the jurisdiction of the anti-hate laws, and if the presence of Wilders would inflame tensions because of his freedom of speech that has not been proved to have violated the British laws, then there was no reason to deny Wilderss entry either under immigration or under the anti-hate laws (Alistair, 2007). After Wilders was declared a persona non grata by the British Home Secretary, he made an appeal to the asylum tribunal, which overturned the ban. Wilders praised the overturn, saying it was a victory for the freedom of speech.

Fitna

The action by the British Home Secretary to ban Wilders from entering the UK may have been incited not by his hate speech, but by the film titled Fitna about Muslims in the Netherlands that had attracted a lot of controversy worldwide, especially, in the Muslim nations. Wilders was sued by various Muslim groups in the Netherlands due to the film that they felt was engendering hate (Tomuschat, 2008).

However, the British Home Secretarys ban imposed on Wilders does not correlate with the prosecution of Wielders in his home country, but with the showing of Fitna in the Westminster palace that Wielders was to attend, when the ban was put in place. Wilders later visited the UK when the ban was lifted and was quick to start his address that the Home Office did not want to hear an attack on Islam where he stated that the more Islam develops, the less freedom it will have in the world.

I strongly believe the whole drama surrounding Mr. Geert Wilders was not caused by any violation of a law, but it was in reaction to the film, Fitna, whose launch he was to oversee during that time he was getting into the UK. The UK government was not out to uphold the law but to please the minority Islamic community.