News Ticker >
[ November 19, 2019 ]

“Impeachment” Cover-Up: Star Witness Alexander Vindman Admits Making up Trump Call Summary

[ November 19, 2019 ]

Democrat Frontrunners Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg denounce pro-Israel policy, support Islamic Jew-hatred

[ November 19, 2019 ]

NYC Veterans Day 2019: Mayor de Blasio’s Comrade Leftists Oppose Patriotic Americans

[ November 19, 2019 ]

100 Senators & Representatives Who Sent Letters Of Support To Designated Islamic Terror Group

[ November 19, 2019 ]

US Department of Education investigating NYU over antisemitism

[ November 19, 2019 ]

Ukraine minister: U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid

[ November 19, 2019 ]

Indiana: Democrat Mayor Arrested by FBI in Corruption Probe

[ November 19, 2019 ]

Students Walk Out Triggered by Sight of Chick-fil-A Truck

[ November 18, 2019 ]

France shuts down 15 mosques linked to jihad-terror in 15 neighborhoods

[ November 18, 2019 ]

Terror-Tied CAIR’s Goal: 30 Jew-Hating Jihadis into Congress

The End of Free Speech in Britain

Abhijit P.G. Pandya, one of our British solicitors, penned this thoughtful and stunning indictment of the latest tribulation in our legal battle against the de facto sharia ban on Robert Spencer and me in the UK.

Screen Shot 2014-01-19 at 10.43.07 PM


In a virtually empty courtroom off Chancery Lane last week the very existence of free speech in Britain was being decided by two judges. They decided to uphold the Government’s exclusion on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the UK. If they were allowed to speak in the UK it would increase, in the Government’s own words, the chances of ‘inter-community tension’, and Muslim violence.
This decision says a lot about the country in which we now live. Robert Spencer has written a number of critical books about Islam, and a biography of Mohammed explaining that perhaps the creator of the Islam was not as saintly as many who follow his faith have been lead to believe.
The key question Spencer raises in his work goes to the heart of whether reform of Islam is possible and whether denunciation of certain interpretations of the Prophet’s life are feasible considering the empirical evidence. It is a key part of the debate of the viability of a reforming movement in Islam, and important with respect to determining whether the religion is compatible with modern Western values adumbrated by our basic civil liberties, including the right to dissent. His works constitute some of the most stark criticisms ofthat religion system since Gibbon, and are an important, if not a fundamental, part of Western literature on Islam. Yet they cannot be espoused by the man himself in Britain, for the fear of an uprising by a third world minority. That seems to entirely vindicate Spencer’s thesis that Islam and its adherents cannot accept dissent. It follows that the issue of reform and discussion is absolutely vital. Obliquely, the Government’s message is thus clear: Islam is not compatible with a Western democracy as you cannot discuss it without provoking violence.
In not allowing Spencer to speak in the UK, this is a country that has blatantly forgotten its own history, its bloodied road to toleration and accepting dissenting groups into the mainstream in society that took several centuries and finally occurred in the 19th under the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. There is no state covenant that can rationally uphold the idea that the protection of minorities from dissent has to be held above the protection of freedom of speech. Such an idea would not just be inimical to the ability of those minorities to integrate and reform. It would also go against the very idea of democracy. Democracy can only succeed where people are able to disagree and tolerate opposing views. The decision also constitutes a blanket indictment of Muslims and non-Muslims. Our Government is convinced not only that somehow we have all forget how to exercise that important right to peacefully protest; but also that it is a right that can be taken away on political preference. Worrying indeed. The importance of that right has been diminished and destroyed by two lazy judges, who are blind to both history and their own ineptitude.

The decision sends a very clear message that the system of our Government and its courts cannot protect the most important civil liberty, that of freedom of speech.  This is a sign that we live in dangerous times. If the state does not protect basic civil liberties, then it falls upon the citizen to do so. The guarding of the guardians ultimately falls upon the Cives as their duty to do so. That is the road to violence that the Government is misguidedly seeking to avoid.

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.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email

Pin It on Pinterest