Believe it or not, he’d been invited by a member of the House of Lords to screen “Fitna” in Parliament. The outrage signal was promptly flashed by a British Muslim peer, who threatened to mobilize 10,000 of the UK’s highly mobilize-able Muslims to block the screening, and the invitation was duly rescinded, drawing this immortal quote from a member of the European Parliament:

One Dutch MEP, Maria Martens, welcomed the decision.

“The film has nothing to do with freedom of expression. This freedom does not give the right to offend,” she said.

The efficacy of intimidation having once again been established, the only question was how far it would extend. Answer: This far.

The British government banned Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders from visiting the country to show his anti-Islam film “Fitna” at the Houses of Parliament, Wilders said Tuesday…

“Let them try to detain me,” he told The Associated Press, adding that he had lunch in the British House of Lords in December…

[I]n a statement the Home Office said it “opposes extremism in all its forms” and would work to “stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.”…

Wilders said the embassy letter informed him he was being refused entry because his views “threaten community harmony and therefore public security” in Britain.

His views don’t threaten public security; the views of his persecutors do. But it’s easier to deal with him than with them, just as it was easier not to run the Mohammed cartoons in American newspapers. Re-read this Mark Steyn column about how the British police behaved in the late 80s when demonstrations calling for Rushdie to be killed were just heating up. This isn’t a new phenomenon, or a new reaction. Presumably the UK’s now a no-go zone for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, too. Exit quotation: “F— off, or I’ll arrest you.”