Data do post: 26 de março de 2009
Nunca pensei que isso fosse acontecer, mas o fato é que a Inglaterra está cada vez mais parecida com aquele cenário sombrio retratado por Alan Moore e David Lloyd em sua graphic novel V de Vingança (esqueçam a adaptação cinematográfica, uma verdadeira bobagem). Em primeiro lugar, o governo de Gordon Brown, o político que teve de pechinchar com Tony Blair para conseguir seu cargo de primeiro-ministro, impediu o parlamentar europeu Geert Wilders de entrar no país para exibir e debater seu curta-metragem Fitna. Em aspectos estéticos, o curta é canhestro, mas tem uma linha de raciocínio bem clara e perturbadora: os motivos do terrorismo islâmico estão no próprio Corão. Segundo Wilders, não existe um Islã moderado – existem muçulmanos moderados. A secretária de Estado Jacqui Smith, ao alegar que Wilders promovia o “hate speech”, ordenou que o paralamentar holandês fosse barrado literalmente na porta do aeroporto. Ainda assim, Wilders não deixou barato: apareceu em todos os meios de comunicação europeus e publicou o discurso que daria na Câmara dos Lordes, uma peça de urgência retórica que não fica nada a dever a um Winston Churchill. (Como de hábito, não apareceu nada relevante na imprensa brasileira; somente João Pereira Coutinho escreveu uma coluna na Folha resumindo a situação)
Coloco-o na íntegra para a vossa edificação:
Geert Wilders’ speech in the House of Lords — if he had not been barred from entering the UK
What Wilders would have said if the British officials had allowed him in:
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.
The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.
In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.
What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.
Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.
There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.
Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.
We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.
Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.
Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.
But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.
You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.
I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trail.
The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.
Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?
We have to defend freedom of speech.
For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.
What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?
The choice is ours.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.
Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.
Thank you very much.
MPChairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
Em segundo lugar, é só notar o jeito fanfarrão e sarcástico do próprio Gordon Brown ao ouvir o discurso de apenas três minutos devastadores de Daniel Hannan, membro do Parlamento Europeu, representando o Sudoeste da Inglaterra. Hannan fez o que qualquer político decente (hello, Brazil!) deveria fazer: falou na frente do algoz, olhos nos olhos, firme, sem nenhuma hesitação. Gordon Brown sequer o encarou; deu uma risadinha e continuou a ler seus documentos burocráticos. A imprensa mainstream ignorou completamente o fato; mas, sabe-se lá como, de repente não mais que de repente, o discurso de Hannan se tornou o vídeo mais visto no You Tube, com mais de 630.000 acessos em um único dia.
Wilders e Hannan são a prova de que ainda existe uma verdadeira oposição e de que a política não é apenas uma negociata atrás da outra para a imposição da Nova Ordem Mundial. E ainda temos um brinde: vocês podem reclamar do que for – das idéias deles, de que os muçulmanos são todos bonzinhos, de que Gordon Brown é um cara bacana, etecétera -, mas jamais podem negar que os dois sabem usar a linguagem como poucos estadistas atuais usam. Entre o moleque que escreve os discursos de Barack H. e as frases de Wilders e Hannan que nos remetem à prosa de ouro de Churchill e Edmund Burke, não hesito em afirmar que o primeiro jamais conseguiria criar linhas como estas para refletir a nossa atual situação econômica:
Once again today you try to spread the blame around. You spoke about an international recession, international crisis. It is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls, but not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging – in other words, to pay off debt – but you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt
E, como mostra o V de Vingança de Alan Moore, são sempre nos momentos de crise de liberdade que descobrimos quem são os verdadeiros estadistas.