There have been two unusual features of the House this morning. After Question Time, there was a Private Notice Question – in effect, an emergency question – on the Government’s decision to ban the Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering the UK. The minister, Admiral Lord West, faced a series of critical questions, but did little more than say that he thought the Home Secretary’s decision was correct and that he could say little more as Mr Wilders was facing prosecution in Holland. He was not able to say who had drawn the matter to the attention of the Home Secretary, nor was he able to identify the last occasion on which a democratically elected parliamentarian had been denied access to the UK. When he said he didn’t know, the peer who asked him shouted out ‘You should’.
The Government appear to have got themselves into considerable trouble on this. As one of my colleagues said to me yesterday, when the Government manage to get gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell and Lord Pearson of Rannoch united in opposition to them, they really have done something remarkable.
A Private Notice Question is limited to ten minutes. When it had finished – I suspect Lord West was glad to get out of the chamber – the House moved to debate the publication of the Good Childhood Inquiry report. The debate was initiated by the Bishop of Leicester and he was well supported by his fellow Bishops. There were nine of them in the chamber, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. Because the Bishop’s Bench was so packed, the Bishop of Manchester sat on one of the back-benches. I have never seen that happen before. One of my colleagues said that there were even more of them in the chamber yesterday, adding: ‘They’re escaping from the synod!’
Geert Wilders and the group that invited him are quite entitled to display that rancid little film of his. The solution is to have no Peers or MPs turn up to watch it. Fitna is a deplorable little film and I suspect that without this storm it would have only attracted xenophobes to the audience.
BTW, for those of you who don’t know, Fitna puts passages of the Koran besides images of islamist crimes, implying that all muslims are dangerous, murderous monsters.
***
Regarding the bishops, I think it just goes to show that they should not sit there. That report was commissioned by the C of E (or one of its arms at least) and they are using their seats in the Lords to push it into debate (although I grant that it might have come up anyway).
They are pushing through their own interests.
Children are not unhappy, having two working parents does not automatically impoverish a child either.
I find it depressing that the minister did not know – or have some general idea – of the last time (if at all) an elected parliamentarian had been denied access to the UK. Or is this one of those cases where it’s better for government to (genuinely) say they don’t know – perhaps because they did not require officials to furnish an answer that they really don’t want to give. It must have been obvious that that question would be asked.
Going by the vitriol at synods of late I can understand them fleeing at any opportunity. I would have expected that they would want to turn up in numbers anyway as they must surely be wanting to keep the issue of the ‘rain tax’ up. The situation which affects sports clubs, community halls as well as religious buildings is pretty scandalous and has so I read led to proposed 1,000> % increases in some cases.
I found the Minister’s response to be utterly pathetic, especially that his opening answer was to quote the legislation that allows them to ban an EU citizen. He was asked *why* Geert Wilders was banned not whether it was legal.
To then spend the rest of the ten minutes repeatedly refusing to give any answer as to ‘why’, shows complete disrespect for Parliament’s duty to scrutinise the Government. Parliament has asked the Government to justify its decision and Government has refused to do so.
Earlier in the session, as part of a previous question on “Arrests for identity forgery”, Lord West of Spithead also spat out the same un-founded, and previously debunked nonsense about ID cards being a universal, tamper-proof, counterfeit-free solution to all our identity fraud problems. Although his manner and phrasing do not give the impression that he’s entirely convinced by what he himself is saying, he has continually parroted the insultingly vague and flawed Government arguments on ID cards. His response to the Private Notice bill could be summed up as “we are right but we’re not going to tell you why”. He may be a Minister, but this weblog has continually pointed out the less partisan nature of the House of Lords and the continual toeing of the party line by Lord West of Spithead is making me take that claim less seriously as a whole.
I find it depressing that this hugely important issue is not being fully covered and debated on Lords of the Blog.
The sight of Lord Ahmed making the asinine argument that Wilders should not be allowed to debate, because there would be the potential for trouble, when it was HE, LORD AHMED who was the one threatening to bring a mob of 10, 000 to disrupt proceedings is absolutely shocking and disgraceful behaviour from a UK legislator.
In fairness to the Lords ministers given ‘collective responsibility’ and that the decisions are made above their pay grade they are playing a pretty difficult hand. However, I agree with most of what Chris says. Even if you have a rotten policy at least defend it with a real argument and make the case. I’m almost sorry for Lord West, given what he has to defend, he does at times look not so much like he is up a creek without a paddle as in the water clinging to the wreckage!
Couldn’t it be argued Wilders was trying to warn us what was being said inside of Mosques, Yet the Govt twists this and says it was him inciting….So If I were to say I was going to carry out a guy Fawkes and how much the MP’s desreved it blah blah blah they all desrev to die bla blah bla, someone tapes me and takes it to the Police and the Police say HE IS CAUSING INCITEMENT !!!.
It was the same a few yrs ago, the Pope happened to mention that Someone in History had said Islam was aviolent Religion, Note it was not the Pope saying this, he was merely quoting a historical statement…He ended up with Death threats !!!! and had to apologise before they were withdrawn…
similarly with the channel 4 documentary Undercover Mosque, they had imans on tape inciting violence, but the CPS started to Prosecute channel 4…what is going on.
I wonder if it has anything to do with repression, I mean, how convenient would it be for the EU Police state to have the European Populace under the Dual Jackboot of a Brutal Police state AND sharia Law.
this would not be the first time this has been tried.
Napoleon’s vision of a United Europe’s constitution based on the Koran and Hitler’s admiration for Islam.
Napoleon stated, “I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform
regime based on the principles of Qur’an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness.”
http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/islal2.htm
Remember that Napoleon was the architect of the United States of Europe.
Hitler also tried to unify Europe and was a great admirer of Islam, “The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than
Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….”5 (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143) ”
It would certainly explain the Pandering I see going on.
Well, Lord Norton, the House of Lords now certainly has raised its profile…
What about guest blogs from the Lords at the centre of this row, pro and anti ?
Thanks for the comments. Bedd Gelert: I am quite happy for there to be a debate on the blog, but I am not sure if any of the other bloggers take issue with my stance, which is in favour of free space. Given my academic background, my natural tendency is to believe in arguing one’s case. Banning people who want to express a particular argument, or burning books, generally serves no positive purpose. Banning Geert Wilders has merely served to give him massive publicity. Had he not been banned, and had no one had kicked up a fuss about him, I doubt if the media would have taken much interest. I take the point made by Troika21. Even with all the publicity, there were not that many who turned up to watch the film. However, because of all the publicity it has now attracted a massive auduence, I gather, on the Internet.
Croft and Chris Nicolson: On the minister’s response, part of his defence was that he knew about the PNQ only shortly before he entered the chamber (and he did have two questions to answer in Question Time). Even so, it was clear than many peers expected a fuller answer. Croft: I fully take the point you make in your second contribution; the minister was constrained by his instructions. He is aware, from experience, of what happens when a minister expresses a view that appears to be at variance with the official line.
Bedd Gelert: Your further comment constitutes an interesting suggestion.
I was interested in the responses regarding the Bishops. For some reason, the Lords Spiritual appear to be of great interest. Whenever I speak on the role of the Lords, it is not unusual to have a question about the bishops.
I watched Lord West’s response and thought it disappointing. It’s good to hear that some other Lords are watching out for freedoms.
From Court of Justice of the European Communities Judgment of the Court of 18 May 1982.
Rezguia Adoui v Belgian State and City of Liège; Dominique Cornuaille v Belgian State.
9 THE ANSWER TO QUESTIONS 1 TO 9 , 11 AND 12 SHOULD THERFORE BE THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT , BY VIRTUE OF THE RESERVATION RELATING TO PUBLIC POLICY CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 48 AND 56 OF THE TREATY , EXPEL A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FROM ITS TERRITORY OR REFUSE HIM ACCESS TO ITS TERRITORY BY REASON OF CONDUCT WHICH , WHEN ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FORMER STATE ‘ S OWN NATIONALS , DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO REPRESSIVE MEASURES OR OTHER GENUINE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES INTENDED TO COMBAT SUCH CONDUCT .
So has Lord West or The Home Secretary broken European Law? We said, recently, that we couldn’t refuse entry to EU workers.
Alfred: Probably not. In EU/ECHR law there is definitely a provision to exclude people on the grounds of ‘public safety, for the prevention of disorder…for the protection of the rights of others’ I’d be interested to see a challenge though, but Wilders may think it not worth the effort as he has already gained out of the affair.
“Because the Bishop’s Bench was so packed, the Bishop of Manchester sat on one of the back-benches.” This happens once a flood, especially if the church roof drains into a soak-away.
Ref: My rainwater rebate is a washout
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/ask-an-expert/consumer/article.html?in_article_id=477589&in_page_id=&ito=1565
For those who are interested there was a look at the issues around Wilders’s film in NPR’s On the Media (listed in iTunes as being from WNYC, New York Public Radio).