Main Page - Latest News

UK bans Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering country


Pamela Geller. Photo from Jewish Daily Forward

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are the founders of Stop the Islamization of America. Geller also runs the website Atlas Shrugs. The British government has now banned them from setting foot in Britain.

Note: The Jewish Daily Forward is a far-left Jewish publication that was openly Marxist when first started. The Forward building in New York City features a bust of Karl Marx and other famous Communists on display.

From Jewish Daily Forward…

Pamela Geller, the controversial anti-Islam blogger and activist infamous for her staunch criticism and denigration of Islam, has been banned from entering the United Kingdom by Home Secretary Theresa May.

In a two-page letter which Geller uploaded onto her blog, Atlas Shrugs, the Home Office informed Geller that has been “excluded from the UK” on the basis that her “presence here would not be conducive to the public good.” Her previous history indicated to the Home Secretary that Geller may attempt to “foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.”

Below the letter in her blogpost, Geller reacted to the decision:

In a striking blow against freedom, the British government has banned us from entering the country. Muhammad al-Arifi, who has advocated Jew-hatred, wife-beating, and jihad violence, entered the U.K. recently with no difficulty. In not allowing us into the country solely because of our true and accurate statements about Islam, the British government is behaving like a de facto Islamic state. The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead.

Geller and her co-founder of Stop Islamisation of America (SIOA), Robert Spencer, who has also been banned from entering the UK, had been due to attend and speak at a rally in Woolwich organized by the English Defense League, the far-right movement which purports to share with Geller a mutual concern over the Islamisation of Europe, on Saturday, June 29. “Today is a sad day for freedom of speech,” EDL leader Tommy Robinson stated after Geller announced her ban.

On the basis of Geller’s work with SIOA, Jihad Watch, and Atlas Shrugs, as well as her previous public statements, the Home Secretary personally deemed that if she were to “espouse such views” in the UK, Geller “would be committing unacceptable behaviors and would therefore be behaving in a way that is not conducive to the public good.”

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Pamela Geller was supposed to speak at a Synagogue in New York City last April. The event was cancelled due to pressure from far-left Jewish groups.

From Jewish Daily Forward…

Pamela Geller preaches venomous hatred of Muslims. She is one of the leading voices promoting the idea of “creeping Sharia” in the United States. Claiming that Islam, as a religion, is dedicated to eradicating Jews and eventually turning all others into Muslims by whatever means necessary is the very definition of hate speech. One might oppose BDS, consider it unfairly anti-Israel, or even consider it an unjust and threatening movement. But it is not hate speech, it is a political point of view.

The boundaries aren’t really all that fuzzy. Heated and passionate political debates, if conducted in a civilized manner, need to be encouraged, and that means airing a wide spectrum of views. But that spectrum loses nothing by not giving hate speech a platform. Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who expressed sympathy for anti-Muslim protesters in the Park51 controversy, considers Geller a hatemonger, and has said so publicly, much to Geller’s chagrin.

Pro-BDS speakers will surely produce a long list of Israeli crimes and an analysis of Israel as an oppressive occupier. One may well disagree with that view, even be offended by it, but that is politics, not hate speech. Hate speech is communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group. Governments and political systems, however, can and must be criticized under any reasonable definition of free speech in an open society.