Less than a week after that whole Carol Thatcher debacle, an even more serious news story is hitting the headlines which involves freedom of speech and the nature of taking offence.

Geert Wilders, a Flemish man who is well known for his outspoken and candid opinions criticising the muslim faith - to the extent of apparently calling for the Koran to be banned - was invited by one UK politician to attend a screening of FITNA, his movie which cites many examples of Islamic Extremism. Many muslims said they found the film - and the very idea of the seventeen minute film -offensive and wanted it banned and the British government have upheld a position that Wilders is likely to incite violence and he hasn't been allowed into the country. He was turned back at Heathrow earlier today.

Now, I tend to believe that most religious people, while convinced of their own beliefs, are fairly tolerant of others, or - at worst - quietly intolerant. When I'm doorstepped by Jehovah's Witnesses I usually tend to sigh and politely say I'm not interested and send them on their way (alternatively, my brother once engaged them for 30 minutes and finally backed them into a theological cul-de-sac so much that they had to do a holy three-point turn and come back later with more facts. It makes you proud!). When I meet people of an faith looking for a honest debate rather than a straightforward conversion, I'm usually happy to oblige and I go into such discussions perfectly willing to MAYBE have my opinions changed as much as re-inforced.

There's just been a press conference with the MP who invited Wilders and a group of her supporters who hold the decision to ban Wilders with some disdane and I have to say, on the surface, they seem to make a lot of sense. They don't all necessarilly hold Wilders in huge regard, but several have pointed out that it now seems illegal to voice any provocative, critical opinion of the Islamic faith or suggest that there are links between the Islamic faith and terrorism. A law was nearly brought into the UK which could have carried up to a seven year sentence)

But, I'll be honest. I DO have problems with some of the more violent chapters and 'inferior/superior' edicts of the Koran (and, equally the Bible had a fair amount of smiting and eye-for-an-eyeing that can make uncomfortable reading too) and there is, sadly, no denying that many of the major atrocities of the last decade have been perpertrated by Islamic extremists (and again, Christianity... let's talk about your etiquette a while back during those Crusades, shall we?). And look... I have no problem with balancing my observation that while I think 99% Muslims/Christians are decent people, I'd just ike to hear a slightly more vociferous condemnation of the extremeists and reserve my right to make observations that may be negative or positive about you as long as I do so with due care. My bottom line: I believe in upholding a law that says you CAN call a person an idiot for their belief system, you just CAN'T demand their death or injury for not having the same stupid belief system as you. Call it the Life of Brian defence, if you will.

FITNA itself is available on the 'Net fairly easily - just do a Google search. I watched it and I think you'll find some of it unpaltable (either way), some of it thought-provoking and definitely with a narrow focus that backs up the director's viewpoint without any discenting noise. Balanced, it isn't. Xenophobic, it might be. But it does challenge you. And, hey, I like a good challenge.

Perhaps it would be in the best service of taking the wind out of the fundamentalist's sails if rather than merely banning the criticism by loudmouth propagandists of either side... a GENUINE ongoing debate was allowed to take place in which represetatives of each side were willing to answer the serious concerns and criticisms of the other. With voices not violence.

Thank GOD we live in a free world where we COULD actually do that if we tried.

But... y'know, let's not kill each other over which one.