On 13 February, Wilders was denied entry to the UK pursuant to an earlier ban issued by the Home Office. He had been invited to a screening of his film Fitna at the House of Lords, but was sent back to the Netherlands on his arrival at Heathrow. The film juxtaposes verses from the Quran against scenes of violence, including images from both 9/11 and 7/7. Issued under auspices of the 2006 European Immigration Regulations, the Secretary of State deemed Wilders’s take on Muslim beliefs a threat to ‘community harmony and therefore public security in the UK’. He currently faces charges for inciting hatred in the Dutch courts for his controversial anti-immigration and anti-Islamic views.
The Home Office decision has, not surprisingly, been met with mixed feelings. Some support the decision, including Manzoor Moghal of the Muslim Council who feels the film misrepresented Muslim beliefs and amounted to incitement of hatred. Yet other opponents of his views feel they were denied the opportunity to challenge him at the screening, asserting that open debate can prove effective in discrediting extremist views. The event also highlights the government’s attempt to decide what is and is not acceptable opinion.
The government stands accused of double standards, banning figures like Wilders, who some commentators say does not directly incite violence, whilst welcoming other foreign government members known for gross human rights abuses. As a result of the ban, Wilders succeeded in attracting a huge amount of media attention not only for his film, but also for his views. Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship describes how this is a ‘classic case of censorship backfiring’, where in an attempt to ‘diffuse a situation’ the government ends up actually ‘providing oxygen for those views’.
