Everybody Geerts
In all this excitement about some bigoted old ex-Hitler Youth fool popping over to Britain to spread prejudice develop closer links with the many millions who adore him up and down the country, another story has slipped under the radar. It's a story about another hatemongering idiot making a visit to the UK - Geert Wilders, the anti-Muslim filmmaker who was previously invited over by UKIP big cheese Lord Pearson but wasn't allowed into the country over security fears.
I wonder if there aren't some comparisons we could make between the two, both of whom should, I think, be welcomed through gritted teeth and allowed to do whatever the hell they like, so long as it's not chucking horse-shit at a mosque or absent-mindedly doing Nazi salutes. They're both deeply unpleasant human beings who cause division and anger - but that doesn't mean they should be prevented from visiting. I'm a little squeamish about the red-carpet treatment offered up to them, from the politicians who court the hateful ferret Wilders and those who will welcome Il Papa, but I suppose that's the price you pay for being a free society. A little squeamishness is OK.
One thing that strikes me is that there shouldn't be double standards. For example, I'm very relaxed about immigration, and about allowing immigrants to behave pretty much however they want and say whatever they like, so long as it's within the law of the land. I think that's fine. So it would be a bit wrong if I suddenly said that different principles should apply to guests or visitors. If the Pope wants to visit Britain and tell us we're all shit, that's very much up to him. Unlike the Vatican, we're quite comfortable with dissent. And if Wilders wants to pop over here and spout his bullshit, that's fine too, as long as he isn't especially provocative about where he does it. Freedoms of this country shouldn't just be there for those who were born here, in my opinion.
And yes, we'll be footing the bill. I don't like it, but I'm afraid these things happen. My tax pounds, few though they are, go to paying for all kinds of things I don't like - including wars and needless deaths. They pay for a lot worse things than simply allowing some ridiculous old cunt to be prejudiced without getting a bullet through his head. And all sorts of murdering bastards have been welcomed on state visits down the years, munched swan with Her Maj and had cheery talks in Number 10; sometimes you wonder if the carpets are coloured red because it hides the bloodstains. For diplomatic purposes, Cardinal Ratzinger, like dignitaries from other vile regimes, is someone we bow and scrape to. I don't like it any more than I liked seeing George Bush getting all chummy with the royal family or Tony Blair. But. It's one of those times when you have to wince and remember that you're being the bigger person.
I know the odious Ratzinger is not just a very nasty piece of work, but also someone who has openly criticised the policies of the current Government, but that shouldn't affect our ability to be decent towards him either. We can't just say that we'll provide decent security for the people we like, and not the ones we don't. Ratzinger, like Wilders, deserves not to be assassinated.
The same freedoms of course extend to anyone who wants to protest about the visits of these hideous men. If they want to shout abuse at Il Papa while he's on his way to a meet and greet, then that's fine, and people doing the protesting should have their right to do it protected. If people want to call Wilders all kinds of names as the silly-haired bastard is on his way into the House of Lords, that's fine too. And our tax pounds will pay for that, as well, and I don't object at all.
All I would say is that Wilders, unlike Il Papa, would probably delight in a victim mentality. He'd love to be prevented from screening his shit-smeared film and claim that he's the one on the receiving end of prejudice, rather than being the instigator of prejudice. Little racists like him love to portray themselves as being the true minority; they crave the victim status of the genuine minorities they loathe so much. Let anyone have their say, by all means, but not prevent him from speaking, as that's playing into his hands. As well as that, it plays into his agenda, and that of certain media outlets; they will get to show Muslims as being shouty, aggressive, people who close down debates and squash freedom - they may well be portrayed that way anyway, but the less ammunition that gets handed over for free, the better, I think.
No related posts.



February 2nd, 2010 - 22:05
'they will get to show Muslims as being shouty, aggressive, people who close down debates and squash freedom'
Having read this post, it seems that description might be better applied to a certain Bristol based writer and wage slave.
I was always told when people swear a lot it's because they have nothing substantive or original to say. I never realised the truth of this until now.
February 3rd, 2010 - 10:19
What I hate most about Ratzinger is that I always confuse him with John Ratzenberger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratzenberger
Which isn't right
February 3rd, 2010 - 13:50
Ah, Michael, the classic "swearing = not very good argument." Fuck off then. No-one asked you to turn up here. I think your comment is shit. Do you like that? What do you think of that? Do you like me calling your comment shit? Or would you prefer 'a steaming cable of horse faeces?' Would that be better? Because whatever way you dress it up, it's shit. Utter shit. Shitty shitty shit shit. If you don't like swearing – and there's kind of a clue at the top of the page about whether swearing will be on this website or not – then fuck off. Bye. See you later. Don't come back.
February 3rd, 2010 - 13:55
@Michael: "I was always told when people swear a lot it's because they have nothing substantive or original to say."
You see what you've done there, Michael, is believe what you've been told.
Which is ironic, given the subject(s) of this – in my opinion, very well written – blog. Cheerio.
February 3rd, 2010 - 14:40
What's most bizarre about Michael's comment is that the post in question contains (unless I missed any) 6 swear words, if I generously allow 'bastard.'
Hardly gratuitous given the length of the piece…
Surely 'Fucking bigtrak' would be more deserving of such ire?
February 3rd, 2010 - 15:37
@Michael when do you think you will realize the truth of 'if you don't have anything particularly useful to add…then don't say it. Good post by the way!
February 3rd, 2010 - 20:24
I wouldn't go quite so far in my criticisms of the Pope. Historically, there have many far more henious than this one, but if truth be told, I'm bias. My best mate at school was a devout RC, still is, and he's a nice person.
But rather than mount a defence of the Pope myself, I'll leave it to Catherine Pepinster: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/pride-pope-benedicts-visit
February 3rd, 2010 - 21:02
I enjoy your blog and your writing, but I have one small quibble: he's no longer Cardinal Ratzinger. He's Pope Benedict the XVI. He was elected to the office and assumed his current name at that time. Hell, slap "former" in front of it if you want to remind people that he used to be a German cardinal, but to call him simply "Cardinal Ratzinger" is factually incorrect.
I realize that you're well aware of this fact, and in interest of full disclosure, I am nowhere near Catholic…but if someone is given a title, I think it correct to address them by it.
February 4th, 2010 - 18:49
@Anton – Whilst offering a masterly display of adolescent defiance regards your language (why not blow some raspberries too?) I notice you left the main point completely untouched – that your post is completely unoriginal or substantive and, to flesh it out a little, something you might expect from an angry and self-regarding 14 year old with a rather severe chip on his shoulder.
Sorry to bring this up again – I know it must be a little taxing, having to think and stuff. In fact, you know what, don't bother – just ignore it and swear a bit more if you want.
Bless.
February 5th, 2010 - 10:47
Michael: Yes, you won. Well done, you win "troll of the week" for provoking a response. I bet you wanked yourself into a frenzy after that and did a little dance round the room. You'd finally made contact with another human being – someone had finally responded to something you wrote under a blog post! For which, many congratulations!
But the answer is still "fuck off". I think about a lot of things. One of them is how much I hate snivelling little trolling cunts like you. Feeble little shites who can't write anything themselves, but decide to pop up like herpes. Herpes, but without the fun.
Now, please fuck off. Or die. Or both. Fuck off first, then die. But do it quietly. Away from here. And painfully.