Firstly I do not consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organisation, because Lebanon has the right to defend itself. If Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, the IDF is definitely a terrorist organisation.
Not true. The Lebanese Army are the equivalent to the IDF, not Hezbollah or any other armed group which operate within Lebanon.
Secondly his purpose to come to England was not to cause any trouble. As I have said before, his purpose was to give a lecture at The School of Oriental and African Studies on Political Islam!
Wilders purpose in coming to Britain was to make a speech in the House of Lords and discuss the film Fitna. It wasn't his purpose to cause trouble either. The trouble was threatened from other sources, not from Wilders himself.
Thirdly, I very much doubt that he has quoted from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because he is a respectable academic and not an idiot (which you have to be to believe in that), and I have not seen anything that says that he did quote from it.
I've no idea whether he did or not, so I won't accuse him of it. However, I do know that he's a spokesperson for an organisation which does express anti-Semitic statements. If Wilders is likely to cause offense, or "trouble" as you put it, then so is a Hezbollah spokesperson.
You talk about Wilders' right to free speech. I don't believe in free speech. I certainly believe that people have the right to criticise political systems and religions, but I also believe that free speech has limits and I do not believe that people should have the freedom to incite hatred.
I do believe in free speech, and I believe that the current trend for silencing free speech with the excuse of "incitement" to this or that is a dangerous one. The cases where freedom of speech has to be curtailed to avoid violence or criminality are, in reality, very rare. The real reason why Wilders, Hezbollah spokesmen and George Galloway are refused entry into other countries is that there are influential people there who hate what they have to say.
That's the test of democracy, isn't it? Its very easy to support freedom for people you agree with to speak. When it comes to somebody you disagree with, which takes precedence - principles, or power politics? Britain and Canada have come down on the side of the latter, and that is a bad thing regardless of what any of us think about individuals who have fallen foul of it.
I personally despise George Galloway, but I am still disgusted that Canada refused him entry into the country.
Anyway, its all stupid. In this day and age the words of Wilders, Hezbollah and Galloway are all available to people in all parts of the world through the Internet, so banning them from a country does nothing apart from give them more publicity. Wilders' party is now the most popular one in Holland, and his profile has massively increased in the rest of the world too, as a result of Britain banning him. If he really was inciting hatred, the British Home Secretary would have to be a co-defendant for helping him.
Topic: Islamophobia & Infidelophobia