A month ago, when parliament made a right-wing Dutch politician (I don't care to publicise his name) famous by inviting him to talk IN PARLIAMENT and SHOW HIS ILLEGAL PREJUDICED FILM and, then, not letting him in, they were giving him a stage.
He had created a video which justaposed the Quran text with violence from the Middle East, trying to connect the two. What could they possibly gain by showing such a film in Parliament anyway? More than likely, the government's intention was likely to get more Brits to buy/download this crap and start race riots or to have Brits spying on their Muslim neighbours.
The big story is that all this is likely part of multi-pronged government policy to help get the heat off their backs, while the country languishes in the economic muck that Labour created. They'd rather that the country burn.
So, I thought I'd give you a comparable analogy, just to see if it makes sense to you.
Say there was this filmmaker named Adolph Hitler (see him waving to the nice people?)
who was a politician, and he had made a film about "evil Jews".
Now, the Chamberlain government, in 1935, decided to invite Adolph to town to talk about his film, even though it was clear that his work was heavily biased and inflammatory. So, to get the most attention possible, Chamberlain gets the media to be there when Hitler is turned back at Dover and so it's in every newspaper. So, every Jew-hater finds out about it and tells his friends, if he has any. This creates an uproar, especially the banning, and so starts a mini-pogrom in the UK.
So, now that I have your attention, by inviting someone to present his illegal, racially-inflammatory work and then simultaneously inviting and banning that person, creates more of a fuss than just letting him sit at home. So, the government's intention is to subvert the intent of their own anti-incitement (to racist acts) law, and start anti-semitic (Arabs are semitic too) and anti-Muslim race riots.
By the way, MPs watched the film anyway.
1 photo royalty-free from fotosearch.com
