LONDON, England– Like a sideshow trying to grab the spotlight during intermission, Geert Wilders'  was determined to come to Britain all wrapped up in the nearly bulletproof veneer of freedom of speech.

Wilders is the provocative Dutch politician currently trying to drum up as much publicity as possible for his film, "Fitna," an uncompromising treatment that describes Islam's holy book, the Quran, as "fascist."

Lord Pearson, a member of the minor UK Independence Party has invited Wilders to Britain in order to screen the film, sending the British government into a spin.

In a statement, the Home Office here said it would prevent Wilders from even entering the UK saying it "opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages ..."

And the Home Office delivered. On Thursday afternoon Wilders told CNN he was denied entry into the United Kingdom and sent back to the Netherlands.

The Quilliam Foundation, a counter-extremism think-tank founded by former Islamist extremists, seems to have been one of the only voices of reason and thought-provoking sanity in all this.

In a statement, it's co-Director, Ed Husain says Wilders should not have been kept out of Britain.

"Wilders has evidently been convinced by the words and actions of Islamists and jihadists that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant, " he said.

"We therefore challenge him to an open debate in which we will argue that Islam is not an inherently violent religion and that, contrary to what he apparently believes, Muslims are not a threat to Europe and its values."

He adds: "Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence."

Unfortunately though, what Wilders has managed to incite now is the kind of media attention that is worth its weight in gold. Wilders has gained that all-too-sought-after publicity that he so craves.

I first interviewed Wilders in 2006 when indeed his freedom of speech was protected not only by Dutch law but by Dutch muscle. He was under police protection after credible threats had been made on his life.

He  denied being a racist and said his only aim was to prove "our western culture is better than the Islamic culture."

He said his mission was clear: "We should stop being tolerant to the people who are intolerant to us, who want in fact a different society than the democratic society than we have today."

Tolerance: There's that word again, so often uttered and so rarely practised.

I have watched Wilders go from an obscure politician to a now infamous provocateur. Make no mistake, he is not interested in a debate. He is interested in promoting his position on Islam. And Britain has now given him a potent platform.  

Whether you agree with his position or not, I found nothing insightful, original or thought-provoking about Wilders' arguments. It is a shame that any debate about Islam that has so much relevance for so many people should become so dominated by a one-dimensional ideologue.

I can't help asking myself, if the British government had just let him in the country to screen his movie, would any of us even know or care that he was here at all?