Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Blogs & opinions
  4. Free speech needs consistency

Free speech needs consistency

13th February 2009 | government-administration , human rights

The UK has surely left itself with the worst of both worlds by refusing Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamist Dutch MP, leave to enter the UK although two screenings of the film he was here to promote went ahead as planned.

As always happens, he and his cause have attracted far more publicity than they would have if he had been allowed to enter unhindered.

If the danger of damage to community relations, or incitement to racial or religious hatred was clear enough, that would not make it wrong to impose a ban. But what is the sense in allowing the showing of a film, to however select an audience, described by the Dutch Government as serving "no purpose other than to offend", while barring its author, who would of course be subject to prosecution if he overstepped the mark while in the UK?

Despite their description of the film, and the fact that Mr Wilders faces prosecution in the Netherlands for inciting discrimination and hatred, the Dutch regard this treatment of an MP by another EU state as "highly regrettable". It certainly does not demonstrate that the United Kingdom has a clear idea either of how to uphold the principle of freedom of speech, or of how to prevent it being abused.

Add To Favorites
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited