On 12th February 2009, Dutch MP Geert Wilders was banned from entering the UK. He is the man behind a film, Fitna, which compares the Koran (in Wilders' a view, a 'fascist book') to Mein Kamp, and juxtaposes images of the text with those of 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings. Wilders' response was to denounce the decision as 'cowardly', fly over anyway, and when refused entry claimed that it was 'a sad day' for UK democracy.

It's long been a staple of UK politics to uphold the ideal of "freedom of speech", which raises the debate – was this a decision that should be celebrated or lamented? Officially, the Home Office can only deny people entry if they believe they are a threat to public safety, but not purely for their views. Critics of the decision would argue that the latter is exactly what occurred, but in a time of political tension, surely this man would serve no other purpose than to incite hatred?

Is it not also a basic human right to live without fear of violence, as well as for your voice to be heard?  Does "freedom of speech" make racism acceptable? Certainly not in my eyes.

In Mr. Wilders own words, "democracy means difference and debate", but it is this kind of tolerance he clearly lacks.  When questioned at Heathrow airport he added, "I'm not doing anything wrong.  I'm not protesting or running through the streets of London." There's nothing wrong with protesting, there is something wrong with racism.

Another legendary quote from this absolute moron – "Most of my Muslim friends think it is a very good film." Yes, because I'm sure you have a lot of Muslim friends Mr. Wilders.

As a leaving comment, the MP, currently on trial in his own country for inciting hatred, said "Of course I will come back."

Please, don't bother.