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 the believer.”
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.