The British government is “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe. They are more Chamberlain than Churchill,” Dutch MP and anti-Islamist Geert Wilders said yesterday, after being refused entry into Britain, to show his anti-Islamist film Fitna in the House of Lords. He was detained on arrival at Britain's Heathrow His passport was taken, and he was deported a few hours later.

UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch and cross-bencher Baroness Cox issued a press statement in response to Wilders treatment. "Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement," the statement says.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband was interviewed on the BBC, and responded to this accusation; and explained the government's position thus:   

The Home Secretary made a decision an individual case as she is required to do. He was invited to screen his program … which includes – his film – which includes extreme anti-Muslim hate. And we have very clear laws in this country. We have profound commitment to freedom of speech borne over hundreds of years. But there is no freedom to cry fire in a crowded theater. There is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred according to the laws of the land. And what the Home Secretary did is follow the laws of the land [...] He applied to come and screen his film. And the Home Secretary made a decision on that case given the hate filled nature of that film.    

Q. Freedom of speech issue though isn't it? The man who invited him calls it appeasement. He means appeasement of radical Muslim parties and factions in this country, who would undoubtedly would have made a big noise about it, but we are now appeasing them by stopping the man from even entering the country.   

A. No, that is an appalling misrepresentation of the truth. A hate filled film which is designed to stir up religious and racial hatred…   

Q. Have you seen the film?   

A. No I haven't seen the film.   

Q. Well how do you know what precisely what the film is like?   

A. You and I know precisely what's in film, because it's no secret what's in the film. But a hate-filled film, designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws.   

As anyone who has seen Fitna [see it here], and is of a rational disposition, knows, it does not exhibit “extreme anti-Muslim hate” or anti-Muslim hate whatsoever. The film juxtaposes footage of Islamist violence and terrorist attacks carried out in different countries (beginning with the 9/11 attacks on the Twin towers in New York) with verses of the Koran that have been used, and indeed are used, by extremist Muslims to justify these attacks. Some of the victims of Islamist violence shown in Wilders' film are clearly Muslims, and as such it is clear that Wilders' Fitna cannot be aimed against Muslims, but at challenging an ideology.
 
Equally alarming as a member of the government denouncing a film as “hate-filled” without having seen it, and championing the deportation of the filmmaker, is the implication that the film, though being shown only in parliament, to a limited audience, for educational purposes, could “stir up hate, religious and racial hatred,” or that this somehow poses a security risk to Britain. This risk, as we know, is not that Wilders' presence might have provoked anti-Muslim sentiment or acts in Britain, but that a radical segment of the Muslim population might react violently.  
 
As has already been commented upon at length, Labour peer Lord Ahmed himself threatened to amass 10,000 Muslims outside of parliament to protest at Wilders. Here, of course, is the security threat – this, and other possible acts. As Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox have also jointly stated, “[...] any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film's message and the need for it to be shown.”
 
The 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in which 3,000 people were killed, and countless other Islamist terrorist attacks from London and Madrid to Iraq demand that mature democratic societies and elected representatives discuss and challenge the ideology that supports terrorism, not hide behind falsehoods, denouncing people and works of which they have only secondhand knowledge.