Sign the petition asking that we be allowed into the country here.
There are a couple of pieces from England today that take issue with the ban on Pamela Geller and me from entering the country, while making it clear that they don’t support us as such, but simply deplore the erosion of the freedom of speech and the resistance to jihad terror in Britain. Their mindset is worth exploring, for it reveals a great deal about the methods of the anti-freedom Left and Islamic supremacists, the reaction of defenders of freedom and human rights to those methods, and why the defenders of freedom and human rights are losing. Here’s one of them: “Theresa May’s ban on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller reveals a troubling relativism,” from The Commentator, June 27:
Let me clarify something from the outset of this blog, so you are not confused by what I am about to say. I am no fan of Pamela Geller (Sorry Pam).
I find her to be shrill, abrasive and her work to be overly concerned with the controversy it attracts rather than the merits of its own arguments. Her comments about the Srebenica [sic] massacre are spurious at best.
The mentality here is apologetic, defensive, and guilty about opposing jihad and Islamic supremacism. It reflects a tacit acceptance of the Leftist/Islamic supremacist contention that there is something wrong about all this, something shrill, something abrasive, something overly controversial, something spurious. And so The Commentator moves to distance itself from that, as if to say, “Well, yes, sir, I am anti-jihad, but not like her. I am a better sort: higher class, unshrill, non-abrasive, non-controversial, non-questioning of dogmas about genocide of Muslims.” The article is conceding that the Left and Islamic supremacists have a point — “some counter-jihadists have the wrong tone and wrong opinions, but mine are much more correct. Please, therefore, do not judge me along with her. The wolves can have her, but they really would be making a huge mistake if they eat me as well.”
While The Commentator is busy deploring Pamela Geller, I will deplore The Commentator for this tacit acceptance of the mindset of demonstrable enemies of freedom. You’ll note that the Left and Islamic supremacists never, ever denounce their own — including Communists, antisemites, terrorists, etc. They stick together and march in lockstep, while routinely pointing to someone in the opposition and demanding of his or her colleagues, “You’re standing with him? But that one is racist/fascist/pro-genocide/Islamophobic/hatemongering/shrill/abrasive. You simply must denounce that one or you will have lost all credibility, and be tainted yourself with the taint that discredits that one.” And conservatives generally, including those who oppose jihad and Islamic supremacism, fall for this again and again, throw the demonized one to the wolves, and think that the wolves will be pleased with their sacrifice and won’t eventually turn on them.
They should think again. There is no foe of jihad and Islamic supremacism who has not been tarred, demonized, smeared, defamed, targeted for personal destruction. This is how the enemies of freedom deal with their foes: our banning from Britain is just the latest example. They never debate us, they never discuss our ideas; they only demonize us and work to destroy us. The degree to which this is done in every individual case varies with the effectiveness and renown of the counter-jihadist in question, but no one is ever spared. Does The Commentator think it will be exempt from the treatment that has been accorded to Pamela Geller — a treatment that in this piece it is approving as right, just and factual? They will be unpleasantly surprised.
As to the particular charges against Pamela Geller, I myself don’t agree that she is shrill or abrasive, but find it revealing that this is foremost among The Commentator’s objections to her work. This suggests that The Commentator is more interested in staying in line, not upsetting the established order, than in actually fighting effectively against the subversion of human rights and establishment of an authoritarian and oppressive social order. One may oppose jihad, yes, as long as one does it in posh tones that are easy on the ear, and doesn’t get too loud about it. This raises the question of whether the editors of The Commentator, as the situation continues to deteriorate in Britain, will ultimately choose to fight for human rights even alongside those who are shrill and abrasive, or will go gently into that good night, satisfied with themselves that while they did dare to make a small noise against the established corruption, they refrained from getting shrill or abrasive about it.
Geller’s work, they say, is also “overly concerned with the controversy it attracts rather than the merits of its own arguments.” This manifests a clumsy misunderstanding of the nature, importance and effectiveness of her work. She exposes media bias, showing how mainstream reporters subvert the truth, misrepresent the facts, manipulate a story in order to force the reader to the desired conclusion. This is extremely important work, for how else are free people ever going to throw off the media’s mind-forged manacles unless they know those manacles exist and understand how they have been forged? And if they don’t throw them off, what hope is there? But this is being “overly concerned with the controversy it attracts rather than the merits of its own arguments.” One must let them control the narrative, you see, without challenge. What could go wrong?
Then we’re told that “her comments about the Srebenica [sic] massacre are spurious at best.” The claim that Geller denies the Srebrenica genocide is a staple of the Leftist/Islamic supremacist case against her. For years, foes of freedom have compiled dossiers on her, on me, and on everyone who dares to oppose them. These are filled with distortions, half-truths, outright lies, misleading claims, leaps of logic, etc. They’re trotted out at every opportunity to discredit us — stalker Nathan Lean hauls out mine (Breivik! SPLC!) every time I am invited to speak somewhere. These are smear pieces, offered by people who have no interested in rational debate or truth: I’ve responded to Lean’s charges dozens of times, but he neither responds nor acknowledges that his claims have been refuted or even challenged. He just hauls them out again next time. This shows that the objective of these dossiers, and those who compile and use them, is not to reveal facts and stimulate honest discussion and debate, but merely to destroy the person who is their subject. That The Commentator, which is ostensibly pro-freedom, would retail something from the Left’s libels of Geller manifests extraordinary naivete and poor judgment. The Commentator’s editors must think no dossier is being prepared on them. If they ever become as effective as Geller, they will discover otherwise.
Anyway, as for Srebrenica, Geller has quoted information from former BBC journalist Jonathan Rooper. BBC journalists are now bigoted genocide deniers? Here is a sample:
The premise that Serbian forces executed 7,000 to 8,000 people “was never a possibility,” according to former BBC journalist Jonathan Rooper, who investigated on site and through official records over many years the events which followed the capture of Srebrenica, and whose findings are presented in the upcoming report of the Srebrenica Research Group. He noted that by the first week of August 1995, 35,632 people had registered with the World Health Organization and Bosnian Government as displaced persons, survivors of Srebrenica, a figure which was later referred to [in] an Amnesty International report and the report of the Dutch Government.
Rooper noted that the International Committee of the Red Cross and The New York Times reported that about 3,000 Muslim soldiers who fought their way across Serb held territory to Muslim lines near Tuzla, were also survivors. The ICRC confirmed that these soldiers were redeployed by the Bosnian Army “without their families being informed.” The figure of 3,000 soldiers who survived was also confirmed by Muslim Gen. Enver Hadzihasanovic, who testified at The Hague. These figures made it clear that at least 38,000 Srebrenica residents survived out of a population of 40,000 before the capture of the enclave. Around 2,000 Muslims who fled with the 28th Division were killed, most by fighting, but also hundreds executed by paramilitary units and a mercenary group.
None of this information is consistent with the claims that there was a genocide of Muslims there, and it comes from a former BBC journalist, the World Health Organization, the Bosnian Government, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the New York Times, and Muslim General Enver Hadzihasanovic. Perhaps some challenge can be made to these claims, but it is a legitimate discussion that needs to be had, rather than waving away Pamela Geller as some hate-filled genocide denier, which is the purpose of the inclusion of Srebrenica in the Leftist/Islamic supremacist dossier on her. The Commentator should have known better than to repeat that tendentious nonsense.
Robert Spencer, while sadly recently attracted to the thuggish English Defence League (that I have denounced on previous occasions) and indeed a good friend of Gellar [sic], has a far more academic and rigorous approach to his work. Don’t get me wrong, flirtation with the EDL reflects ignorance and rightly arouses suspicion – but does it require a curtailment of the freedom of travel and freedom of speech? I don’t think so.
“Thuggish,” i.e., they fight back. Geller sums it up: “I was there when they were formed as a result of vicious epithets and abuse being hurled at returning soldiers by devout Muslims. The rise of the EDL was a natural response, an organic repulsion to a hatred, to a violent movement bent on the destruction of our way of life. I have monitored the group for the past four years. Are they perfect? Of course not, and I have expressed concerns in the past (here and here), and they do their best to purge their ranks of problems, but their heart is in the right place. I understand there is a class system still in Britain and these blokes are a bit rough round the edges and less than cultured, but so what?…The EDL is thuggish? I see. That reeks of elitism. These boys are a bit dirty and they don’t do high tea at 4. But I know they have no racist agenda, and far from being neo-Nazis, they’re one of the most (if not the most) pro-Israel groups in Britain. They’ve reached out to Jews, Sikhs, women, gays and others. They oppose violence and do not provoke it; they just fight back when attacked.”
Then comes The Commentator’s faint praise:
Even an Imam had to recently admit that Spencer knew his stuff. Don’t believe me? Listen to this interview of his with the BBC Asian Network last week. And also, weep at how uninformed Nick Lowles of the Hope Not Hate group is. And before you claim, “OMG you’re endorsing Robert Spencer!” No I’m not. I’m just saying, he’s not as “out there” as people claim. And he’s certainly not ban-worthy.
“And before you claim, ‘OMG you’re endorsing Robert Spencer!’ No I’m not.” Again The Commentator buys into the Leftist/Islamic supremacist contention that there is something wrong with us, something wrong with what we do, and they hasten to assure their masters that they’re not buying into it — it’s just the free speech principle of the thing, don’t you see?
This reminds me of National Lampoon’s wonderful early 1970s parody album Radio Dinner, which featured a wonderful Joan Baez imitation that artfully skewered her limosine radicalism: “Pull the triggers n****rs, we’re with you all the way/Just across the Bay…” We’re doing the dirty work that The Commentator knows needs to be done, and by golly, they’re with us — about 500 miles back, manicured hands reaching for teacups. How shocked they will be when the same engines of defamation and libel that have created the lies that got us banned from Britain turn on them. But who will speak up for them then, when all the “shrill” and “abrasive” types are long gone from the scene?