Pamela Geller, WND Column: Fighting the British ban on freedom fighters

Read my ccolumn in today’s WND. Sharia in Britain must be fiercely opposed by freedom loving people. It bodes most ill for the future.

DEFENDING THE WEST


Fighting the British ban on freedom fighters
Exclusive: Pamela Geller exposes ‘state sanction of terrorism’

Last week I posted at my website, AtlasShrugs.com, the appalling
response from the home secretary concerning the craven refusal to allow
Robert Spencer and me to enter the U.K. to place a stars and stripes
wreath at the site of the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Story continues below advertisement

Their response (Letter Treasury Solicitor, here)
most awfully demonstrates the fraudulent, arbitrary and capricious
nature of government use of power. They assumed absolute authority to
exclude those whose words they think might “justify terrorist violence.”
That is state sanction of terrorism: Anyone who might displease savages
can and will be banned. And yet they allow jihadists in, such as a
Muslim Brotherhood leader just recently,
despite the Brotherhood’s persecution of Coptic Christians. And just
before we were banned, they let in a Saudi imam, Muhammad al-Arifi, who has said:
“There is no doubt that one’s devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah
and one’s will to shed blood, smash skulls, and chop off body parts for
the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion constitute an honor for
the believer.”

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books — featured at the WND Superstore

Their “research” reports prepared by the U.K. government on Robert
and me are both mendacious and outrageous in their bias and slant. This
just confirms what we know, unfortunately. They use Hamas-CAIR as a
legit source. I find the redactions to be quite revealing: When
examined, they suggest a deep infiltration by the Islamic supremacists
and their leftists.

We address all of this and more in our response. Some key excerpts:

The decision to exclude the Applicants is based on the
Unacceptable Behaviours Policy made under the government “Prevent” and
“Contest” policies. … As reflected upon above, these apply only to
combating terrorism through dealing with terror suspects and/or those
extremists who encourage terrorism. There is no power under “Prevent” to
exclude non-terror suspects such as the Applicants who are in effect
assisting the Home Secretary in the implementation of the “Prevent”
policy by opposing Islamic extremists and terrorists in their writings.
The Applicants are not promoting ideas which can be said to form part of
a terrorist ideology.

The Unacceptable Behaviours Policy, therefore, does not permit the
exclusion of the Applicants who do not, on the evidence, fall within the
“Prevent” policy. The “Prevent” policy is only limited to possible
terrorist activities and their encouragement. The post decision letter
of the Secretary of State dated 5/8/2013 admits that the inter community
violence clause in the Unacceptable Behaviours Policy goes contrary to
the objectives of “Prevent.” … Accordingly, this is a classic case where
the Secretary of State is exercising her powers for an extraneous
purpose, in that she is using her powers provided to curtail terrorism
for a collateral object: that is, for the purposes of excluding foreign
nationals by dangerously curtailing their freedom of expression and/or
other freedoms on a personal whim: a clear abuse of power.

Thus the State’s entire approach is flawed. Instead of spending time
and effort reviewing the views of the Applicants, there should have been
an identification of the likely perpetrators of violence, so that the
threat could be managed and/or curtailed through law enforcement. The
Secretary of State made no attempt to contact the Applicants and
question them about their views. If the Secretary of State can exclude
on the basis of the views of a select few in society, a wall against
dissent is being improperly construed through exclusion orders.

The evidential material referred to above shows that the Applicants
do not promote violence or hate. Their actions were lawful actions. It
was not shown that the material upon which the exclusion was made had
led to any violent protests or that such protests were in progress.

The Applicants engage in a theological debate which highlights how
radical and extreme Islam poses a threat to Western civilisation through
use of the concept of Jihad against the unbelievers, in particular
Jews, Copts, Hindus, Buddhists, Bahais, apostates from Islam, and gays.
Such criticism is justified in the public interest because it promotes a
significant debate regarding the parts of Islam acceptable in a Western
democratic society. This is particularly important in light of
terrorist activities committed in the name of Islam in Israel, the
Palestinian Authority, and elsewhere around the world, including the
U.K. and the U.S.

The Applicants’ message is far from offensive. It cannot in any event
form a basis to exclude. For such views are relevant to matters within
the people’s collective decision making authority, including immigration
policy, whether there is a role for Sharia in Britain, and the attitude
state schools and other public institutions should adopt towards Muslim
customs, including the veiling of women and girls. It is thus a
perspective that, despite the offence or insult it may cause, must be
allowed to be expressed in a democratic society on the basis that it is
necessary to the proliferation of a public debate in a society where bad
ideas area superseded by better ones. The Applicants’ views are
relevant to current rule making and policy in the U.K., such as for
instance, Baroness Cox’s Sharia Law Bill to combat Islamic tribunals in
the U.K.

Read the whole thing here.
It’s lengthy, but all 72 pages are worth your time. It is a powerful
and irrefutable argument for truth and freedom, no matter the outcome.
Future generations will know that the battle for our most precious
unalienable rights was fought fiercely.

I wish to thank our British attorneys: Arfan Khan, barrister for the
applicants, and Dr. Abhijit Pandya, senior consultant, Christian Laverge
Solicitors, for their tireless efforts on our behalf.

None of this is pro-bono, and despite the fact that in a sane and
rational world, a win would look obvious on the sheer facts of the case,
this is not reality. We live in an increasingly Shariah-compliant
world, where freedom loses almost every time.

And if we do lose, we have to pay the state’s legal fees. Yes, that’s
right. The queen ain’t rich enough. They have to bankrupt those who
dare to stand for freedom, so as to discourage others from making a
similar stand.

Believe in what we are doing? Contribute to our legal fund: go to Paypal.com (here) and make a tax-deductible donation to [email protected].

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here

0 0 votes

Article Rating

7 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Michael Copeland

10 years ago

The “Unacceptable Behaviours Policy” – a type of Memorandum issued by the Home Office – is itself based on another “Memorandum”, the “Prevent” strategy ([PDF] Prevent Strategy – Gov.UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/…/prevent-strategy-review.pdf‎).
Neither of these is a Statute passed by Parliament. Their contents, though, need to be consistent with the law. If they are not, their provisions are not valid.
The Home Secretary misquoted the Policy when excluding Geller and Spencer. She wrote that they had expressed views which “may foster hatred….”. There is no “MAY” in the Policy: it says “views which foster hatred”.

0

Thomas Pellow

10 years ago

Yes, you make excellent key points.
The U.K Government’s so-called ‘Prevent Strategy’, ostensibly designed ‘for combating the threat of extremism and/or terrorism’ is being used AGAINST Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who spend much of their time and efforts COMBATING the ‘threat of extremism and/or terrorism!’

0

KLKL

10 years ago

indeed, the UK is bowing to the jihad at every turn. rather than walking up to the Jihad they are requiring British soldiers to go to Muslim mosques and read the Qur’an. what could be more stupid of them? and they allow Choudary to walk unharmed in London.
“I wish to thank our British attorneys: Arfan Khan, barrister for the applicants, and Dr. Abhijit Pandya, senior consultant, Christian Laverge Solicitors, for their tireless efforts on our behalf” I DO THE SAME!

0

sam

10 years ago

uk should be applauded..we in the u.s. tolerate talmudic courts in willamsburg and other majority orthodox cities in the u.s…we accept their right to perform oral circumcision on babies…request kosher foods be available in supermarkets….comply with their requests for women to cross the street when women see them coming towards them on the same sidewalk….we look the other way as theytwirl live chickens overhead on rosh hashanah declaring the earth 5774 yrs young oy vey

0

RalphB

10 years ago

Sam, your obsessive interest in some questionable beliefs and practices of a tiny minority of Orthodox(?) Jews — things that may seem a bit freakish but have nothing to do with the beliefs and practices of the great mass of Jews — tells us a lot about you but little about anyone else.
On the other hand, the fact that a violent and perverted freak, Muhammad, is a hero to virtually every Muslim and is emulated at every turn tells us a great deal about what we can expect from too many of those who follow Islam, the truth of which is demonstrated on a daily basis by the jihad-mutilated bodies of innocent men, women, children and babies.
I suggest your concern about the cutting off of infant’s foreskins should be augmented by some interest in the cutting off of human heads. Do you have any concern about that, or is your outrage selectively aimed at Jews alone?

0

sam

10 years ago

you claim your heroes geller/spencer are trying to preserve western values…if true then let them demonize the practice of allowing talmudic courts in the u.s. and let them speak out in support of the ban on oral circumcision in nyc….a bus ad seeking support on the oral circumcision ban will be on buses in nyc next spring…please hsve them support it

0

Michael Copeland

10 years ago

THE “UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR” OF ROBERT SPENCER
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/5865-the-unacceptable-behaviour-of-robert-spencer?highlight=YTozOntpOjA7czo3OiJtaWNoYWVsIjtpOjE7czo4OiJjb3BlbGFu

0