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.
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
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
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
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 to our ground-breaking work here.
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.