“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.
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 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.
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.
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.