A Comment About

Why Britain Should Never Have Banned Geert Wilders

February 14, 2009 - 12:00 am - by Mike McNally
Bill Chad
2009-02-15 04:29:03

I think Milliband’s phrase or excuse for keeping out Wilders, is pretty telling: ‘we won’t allow people to shout ‘fire’…in a crowded cinema’. (Obviously meaning some idiot screaming ‘fire’ when there isn’t one) (Although I personally think that 99% of people who shout ‘fire’ actually do it because there is a fire)
The phrase itself, apart from it being a strange analogy to make in this particular instance, is in itself a nervous phrase which implies fear, and if looked at a little more closely it could be bordering on anxiety.

The phrase implies quiet a lot of fear and a train of thought that includes ‘panic’ ‘death’ ‘self preservation’ and ‘confusion’.

Now you could say that the above is making a little too much out of a simple analogy, and if you have that view, all good and well, but I don’t.
I say this because this phrase was well thought threw; it came a good 24 hours after the initial refusal of Wilders entry to GB, and had obviously been given some consideration, so it wasn’t ‘off the top of the head’ so to speak…

This phrase as said above is a ‘telling’ phrase, and it does imply that the Government of the UK panicked when confronted with what decision to make about Geert Wilders film, and whether to allow him into the Country. It does show that the UK Government do sub-consciously know that they have created a tinder box situation, they do know that from within i.e..in the cinema, an explosion ‘fire’ could breakout at any moment, they do know that the panic confusion and chaos that would ensue would be uncontrollable…they also know that what they used to avoid, has now turned into, what they now must evade. Due to this self created situation, they now have very nearly placed themselves in a position of checkmate, and one of the only obvious moves that they can make is one of appeasement.
Appeasement isn’t a bad word, if it avoids hand to hand combat on the streets of Britain, then I’m all for it. But it does imply cowardice, and cowardice by its very nature strengthens (for want of a better word) the enemy.
Subjugate the controllable (the white Anglo-Saxon British) appease the uncontrollable (the ideological Muslims)