Apparently the criticism of Islam and the terrorism it inspires will be grounds for banning traveling to the UK under the regime of PM Gordon Brown.

Geert Wilders had been refused entry to the United Kingdom to broadcast his controversial anti-Muslim film Fitna in the House of Lords.

Mr Wilders said he had been told that in the interests of public order he will not be allowed to come to Britain.

He responded to the decision in fighting mood, telling reporters that he still intended to travel to London.

He said: "I shall probably go to Britain anyway on Thursday. Let us see if they put me in chains on arrival. It is an unbelievable decision made by a group of cowards."

Mr Wilders is under 24-hour police protection because of his anti-Muslim stance.
He has been receiving death threats from Muslim groups outside Holland since the anti-Koran film appeared on the internet earlier this year.

In other words, vocal opposition to the Koran-inspired terrorism engaged in by Islamists like those who bombed the London subways in 2005 will get you banned by the UK, while Muslim preachers of hate continue to espouse the same ideology in British mosques. I guess the next step will be to get Queen Elizabeth into a burqa for public occasions, lest the Mohammadan horde become outraged.

My colleagues and I have been planning a trip to the UK for our students for next spring. I will now be recommending another destination -- after all, I would no more take kids to the UK than I would to North Korea or Iran given the sad state of human rights that now exists in formerly-Great Britain.

More at Hot Air, JoshuaPundit, Founding Bloggers, Jawa Report

UPDATE: Columnist and author Melanie Phillips offers this insight from the UK:

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

The author of Londonistan offers a great description of the decision in the closing paragraph -- "spinelessness".