Our Legal Response to the British Ban: Grounds for Judicial Review, to “the Queen on the application of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer”

12

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Thomas Paine

Last week I posted the appalling response from the Home Secretary concerning the craven refusal to allow Robert Spencer and me to enter the UK 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 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.”

Their “research” reports prepared by the UK government on both 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. 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.

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.

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 grounds for judicial review relied
upon in summary are as follows:

(i). The decision to exclude was an
abuse of power.

 

(ii). The decision to exclude was capricious,
arbitrary, and based upon an improper motive.

 

(iii). The decision to exclude was unlawful
and/or ultra vires.

 

(iv). The decision was erroneous in law.

 

(v). The Applicants had a legitimate
expectation that they would be allowed to enter and express their views in the
UK pursuant to the government’s “Prevent
policy. The decision to exclude was not, therefore, permissible.

 

(vi). The decision to exclude was
arrived at through a procedurally improper manner, failed to take into account
and/or weigh the relevant facts and/or took into account irrelevant facts
without further enquiry. The decision did not take into account the Applicants’
views regarding the exclusion.

 

(vii). The decision was contrary to
Articles 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 of the ECHR as set out in schedule 1 to the Human
Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”).

 

(viii). The decision was irrational
and/or Wednesbury unreasonable.

 

2.   The two claims
are brought together, though the views expressed by each Applicant are separate,
and the decision letters are addressed separately to each Applicant.
 

 

3.   These Grounds
are accompanied by evidence contained in the witness statements of the First
Claimant, Ms Pamela Geller, and Mr Robert Spencer, the Second Applicant dated 6/9/2013.

 

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.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jerry Bullister
Jerry Bullister
10 years ago

Jolly Good show!
Thanks to every one who donated to the defense fund.
Out-lawyer British dhimmitude. One billable hour at a time.

Derwish
Derwish
10 years ago

Way to go, Ms. Geller!!
But, but. Counsel Arfan Khan, consultant Abhujit Pandya?!
I hope these dudes will be efficient and dedicated, mais!–
where are all the Nicholas Carrs and Nigel Davieses?
Too expensive, I fathom.
Pauvre Petite-Bretagne.

Chris Wolf
Chris Wolf
10 years ago

The Queen is wise and responsible enough to be aware of the existential threat posed by islam to Western Civilization — look what happened to Diana.
It’s surely obvious by now that she became expendable and persona non grata when she started dated a lowly arab muslim, creating the categorically unacceptable potential chance of the future King of England having a half-muslim half brother.
That’s not what the British Crown is in the business of tolerating.
Fuck Dodi Fayed, he got what he deserved.

RalphB
RalphB
10 years ago

The Thugs’s Veto Triumphant
Well, it shouldn’t take a freaking book-length pleading to have one’s freedom of speech recognized, but I guess the applicants got their money’s worth from their lawyers.
The thing that grates on me is the last point on the “irrationality” claim:
“It is irrational to assume, as the Secretary of State did, that the Applicants’
criticism may offend Muslims and thereby cause intercommunity violence. No Muslim is reported to have committed such out of control violence following staunch criticism of the Islamic religion by UK nationals and those permitted to visit the UK from elsewhere.” (Aside: So violence is okay as long as it’s in control?)
This may be smart lawyering but it concedes legitimacy to the “thug’s veto” which used to be called the “heckler’s veto” before it became normal not to heckle but to kill those whose views offended. What we see here is an honored legal standing for the kind of thug who murdered Theo Van Gogh because he hated the documentary film Van Gogh made. Apparently the last thing that would occur to those who buy into this legal theory would be to protect speakers whose views are unpopular with thugs and punish the thugs.
So let the cry be heard throughout the kingdom: If you don’t like what someone said or think they are about to say, threaten violence and be sure to carry out your threat or you may lose your “violence-credibility” and honored standing as the official Censor of the Kingdom.
So it’s come to this?

RCCA
RCCA
10 years ago

I think the strongest part of the argument is that neither Geller nor Spencer have ever advocated for violence and neither has ever been directly involved in violence either privately or through their public activities. Their criticism of Islam is directed towards the extreme practice of Islam, not all Muslims. (But as a reader here and Jihadwatch I have observed that they do dismiss any acknowledgement that a moderate form of Islam legitimately exists.) In a free society their views and opinions might offend peaceful Muslims who feel unfairly targeted, but for intellectual purposes that interchange would be beneficial for society. I think you should definitely win the case based on the facts and the arguments. The UK government overstepped and acted wrongly.

KLKL
KLKL
10 years ago

it is encouraging to you and Spencer got the money needed to fund your application of a right to enter the UK. shows some haven’t bowed to the political correctness of our day. you wanted to honor a British solider who was murdered by a devout Muslim and yet you were denied entry because of the influence of the dhimmi and Muslim lobby. i hope the decision is rescinded.

canadianmohamhater
canadianmohamhater
10 years ago

What a Jubilation day it will be in England when Pamela and Robert finally step off that plane at Heathrow!

timD
tim
10 years ago

I am not 100% sure the attorney’s would want their names on here… you know they can get black listed and targeted year after year, should just one mohammedan fanatic in England decided to turn crowds against them. Just a thought.
Muslims are very aggressive, dominating and violent in England.

Achilles
Achilles
10 years ago

I’ve been petitioning the Home Office in correspondence on this matter since it started & am several letters in already …. tough going =(

sam
sam
10 years ago

the brits should keep a stiff upper lip and keep these hatemongers spencer/geller away from their country and continent

Nick
Nick
10 years ago

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” Thomas Paine
John Stuart Mill, not Thomas Paine.

Kirsten
Kirsten
10 years ago

Smart lawyering and very clever arguments. Like the drafting.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!