Last week, the unjust exclusion of Pamela Geller and me from entering the U.K. was upheld by two judges who didn’t even bother to consider our counter-arguments. The fight is not even close to over, however; we are renewing our appeal at the next level, and will fight on. Meanwhile, one of our British attorneys, Abhijit P. G. Pandya, explains what’s at stake:
“The End of Free Speech in Britain,” by Abhijit P. G. Pandya, January 18:
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.

mortimer says
Islam needs special protection from criticism because “Islam is not compatible with a Western democracy as you cannot discuss it without provoking violence.”
Disagreeing with Mohammed is the sin and the treason against Allah who has a right to dominate the earth through his viceroys, the Muslims. Their job is to hunt down, kill and crush kafirs. Muslims are bounty hunters for Mohammed. By not standing up to the bullies of Islam, the UK government is allowing them to continue intimidating.
The only people who can resolve this are UK’s indigenous peoples. They have to stop protecting the underdogs from criticism and realize that the underdogs are making fools of them and laughing themselves silly.
Alan Derpowitz says
If that country subsedizes the existance of those it knows to foster violent jihadism then they’ve no right to exclude those who peacefully oppose violent jihadism.
Salah says
Free speech means the death of Islam. Muslims know it. Muhammad knew it, therefore he ordered the assassination of all his critics.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/03/assassin-english.html
Charli Main says
“Freedom of expression, go to hell ”
The mantra of the Nazi/Muslim axis of evil
robin says
Dear Salah,
I would like to reproduce your comments in a book I am planning to write, but will refer to you anonymously (not mention your name). Do you have any objections?
The Aton says
The last thing Islam wants is freedom of speech. What they want, is special privileges and special protection.
When Tony Blair proposed a special ‘religious hate-speech’ law, the imams were down to Westminster like a shot – asking for a dispensation for the Koran.
When I showed sections of a certain hate-filled book to Westminster, the MPs were aghast that such a book was available in UK shops. And so they set about having it banned. Three weeks later, after they found out it was the Koran, they came back and said that the Koran was not subject to the general laws on incitement to hatred.
Who says?
Why the special treatment?
Are we already dhimmis in our own land?
As it says in the Koran – “do they not see how we encroach their borders and take over their lands?”
Obviously not….
Anushirvan says
Quite so. Yusuf al Qaradawi admitted as much when he said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment Islam wouldn’t exist today”
Which simply means there can be no Islam without violent coercion or an institutionalized Reign of Terror. (=Sharia)
Thomas Pellow says
While the Islamic-compliant British government bans anti-Islamic jihadists, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, it is unable/unwilling to stop this direct Islamic jihad threat:-
“Al-Qaeda training British and European ‘jihadists’ in Syria to set up terror cells at home.
“Al-Qaeda training hundreds of British and European jihadis in Syria – and telling them to return home to set up terror cells.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10582945/Al-Qaeda-training-British-and-European-jihadists-in-Syria-to-set-up-terror-cells-at-home.html
Charlie Griffith says
Mr Spencer….Kudos to your technical guru for this “new look”. Everything…everything….. about it is just fine.
Keep up your excellent work.
Ian says
Thanks for always striving to make people aware of the dangers of Islamic Fundamentalism. I lived for many years in a Muslim country and saw firsthand how the prevailing laws protected the Muslims. If they had no power to enforce their religion, Islam would cease to exist within a few years. They preach peace but practice hatred, violence and discrimination. They preach tolerance but practice subjugation. They preach the love of their god but show only how hateful and intolerant their god really is today. Within the next 5-10 years, London many cities in London will have Muslim Mayors and be subject to sharia Law. It serves them right: They look but cannot see, they listen but cannot hear.
Sootys Mum says
http://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint.htm
DAVE says
when I consider how many wonderful people lost their life so that freedom of speech could and would continue it breaks my heart,
also when I consider how many hate filled preachers have been, not only aloud into our country, but allowed the stay with they hate for everything we stand for, it sickens me. sorry Robert, sorry Pamela please keep fighting this just cause and maybe all is not lost.
Gamaliel says
The ostensible reasons for banning Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are that their presence would increase the chances of ‘inter-community tension’, and Muslim violence. On the contrary banning Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller increase the chances of Muslim violence. Muslims learn that the terrorizing Englishman into submission pays off and that violence and intimidation works. Banning Pamela and Robert rewards bad Muslim behavior and encourages more of it. I remember a video of British police running away from a mob of British Muslims. Did Pamela Geller cause that? Did Robert Spencer cause that? The British need to stop running away and face up to the fact that Muslim violence is going to keep rising until they show some guts and stop caving in to it.
JessieJames says
Apparently some comments are falling throught the crack!
Salah says
Robin wrote:
Dear Salah,
I would like to reproduce your comments in a book I am planning to write, but will refer to you anonymously (not mention your name). Do you have any objections?
Of course not. Good luck with your book.
Anonymous says
Let the Islam Shit go to Hell!
GeoffM says
The UK is fucked – or at least the British are!
What chance have we got when our legal system supported Islamofascists?
JamesonRocks says
Very sad times for the UK. No one said it better, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson
American says
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” -George Washington
“We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment.” -Eleanor Roosevelt