When is it right to curtail free speech?

I am somewhat concerned by the ban, imposed yesterday, on the right of Geert Wilders to enter the United Kingdom. I know he is controversial, I know he is facing trial in the Netherlands for inciting racial hatred. But I believe at the moment he is not a convicted criminal, he is a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands and thus, not only a fellow citizen of the European Union but one of its elected representatives.



It seems to me that his invitation by Lord Pearson of UKIP, though it may have been mischievous in intent, was a controlled visit to show his film 'FITNA' to a select group in the House of Lords.

I understand the film attempts to link the Koran and some of its verses to acts of terrorism by Muslim extremists. It may well be a piece of out and out racist bigotry or it might pose some awkward questions. I don't know. I haven't seen the film. But then neither has Boy Wonder Miliband who was breathing hot air all over the TV screen yesterday justifying the government's decision to ban Mr Wilders on the basis of his film that 'seeks to justify Islamophobia and divide communities'. When asked if he had seen the film, Miliband spluttered that he hadn't 'but , come off it, we all know what it's about, don't we'

Well I don't and clearly Miliband doesn't either but apparently a knowledge of the facts is not a necessary credential for this Labour Government to once again step in and impose some authoritarian sanction. It may well be that there are good reasons for banning Wilders from the country but I didn't hear them from Miliband. Just the usual righteously indignant rhetoric.

I don't suppose Wilders was all that put out. Its less than an hour back to Holland and I daresay his flight was paid for. But I worry about the government's consistency. We have allowed a number of controversial characters into the country recently, like reggae singer Rodney Pryce who hates homosexuals and glorifies black gang culture. Surely we have to be extra careful when the target is a fellow citizen of the EU with rights of free travel within the Union unless there are very specific grounds to refuse him. Does this qualify? I have my doubts.

Michael Portillo has criticised the decision on the basis that an 'unknown twit and a bigot has been turned into a minor celebrity' and there is some truth in that. My bigger fear is that this government is not refusing entry based on the seriousness of the offence but how much trouble is likely to be stirred up by the targets.

So if radical Islam threatens to take to the streets, set fire to effigies and generally make life uncomfortable for the forces of law and order, does that mean all its critics will be automatically banned? If that is the way the right to free speech is being interpreted, as appears very much the case, it makes the government look very weak indeed.