One step closer to Orwell's 1984

Everyone will have heard by now how the Dutch foreign minister Geert Wilders has been banned from the UK, following his intention to give a speech expressing his controversial opinions about Islam as a political ideology.

Of course, what gets me is that Wilders' comments are completely unjustifiable. His information is entirely inaccurate.

Let us take a few examples:

"Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever...and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word ... And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims."

The man's got it wrong! The Quran is open to interpretation however Muslims see fit, and Muhammad is not in any way a role model for how Muslims should live. It's not as if they believe Muhammad was God's messenger and had a special relationship with him!

What else did he spout? "Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal." Oh, what claptrap! Since when did Islam mean submission? It means peace, doesn't it? (even if it does originate from the root s-l-m, or derived from the Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit.")

He also claimed absurdities about the activities of Muslims today! He tried, for instance, to claim that a teacher punished two boys who refused to pray to Allah! And that a primary school cancelled its Christmas nativity play - disappointing children and parents and breaking a much loved and treasured tradition - because it interfered with an Islamic festival!

Don't be silly - Muslims don't have such power and influence in this Western secular democracy...

The sharper (!) of you will have detected just the slightest hint of sarcasm is this article so far. I am, to be quite frank, outraged. Thoroughly pissed off. One man expresses anti-Islamic opinions and he's BANNED from the country? Over-reaction to statements which dare to suggest that Islam can be criticised...now where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, that's right...the Pope at Regensburg in 2006, of course. Muslims cleverly responded to the Pope's referral to a 14th century theologian's suggestions that Islam might be a violent religion by burning effigies, sabotaging churches and stabbing nuns. Cleverly done.

To conclude, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that there is, after all, one thing in Wilders' speech which really is bollocks:

"For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. "

And I'm sure he feels the same. He spoke too soon, there.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Hmmm...

This slogan could soon be found on many London buses.

Interesting, if not unoriginal, argument. The slogan COULD be deemed offensive to believers, and might initially make a firm believer in God cringe. But after a little thought I actually agree with those who have supported the publishing of this slogan for promoting debate about the existence of God.

It is indeed a very good point that religious groups do get to advertise on buses, so atheists should not be exempt from this. I am not one who subscribes to the view that religious believers should attempt to supress any attempts to contradict them, or doctrines which are not coherent with their own faith. It is my belief that if one is strong enough in their faith, they should remain untroubled by opposing views. So, on the whole, my opinion on this issue is that it's given me the excuse for an extra blog entry!

Except for one minor criticism. The opinions of Richard Dawkins in relation to this new campaign include these words: ""Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children." Now, call it paranoia, but why do I get the feeling that Dawkins is using the word "religion" here as a term to disguise the true word he means, "Christianity". Because if he does, he is very much mistaken. The faith no longer has state funding, is heavily mocked in the media, and has long been an acceptable target of criticism (whilst other faiths have the right not to be offended).

Think on, Dawkins. I think you're the one who's been getting the free ride.