The well-heeled defamation machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center has taken aim at our documentary film on the jihad against the freedom of speech, Can’t We Talk About This?. Watch this groundbreaking film on Vimeo here. And please help us meet the massive expenses of our truth campaigns: contribute here.
Comments on this latest SPLC hit piece interspersed below.
“Can’t We Talk About This?: More anti-Muslim propaganda from Pamela Geller,” Southern Poverty Law Center, October 2, 2017:
Pamela Geller’s 90-minute film, Can’t We Talk About This, written by Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, enlists an all-star lineup of Islamophobes to hype the alarm over the threat of Islam to the West.
Yes, of course, because there is no threat. Just ask Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, or Hamza bin Laden, or Nidal Malik Hasan, or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, or Syed Rizwan Farook, or Tashfeen Malik, or a host of others. Ask the victims of Muslim rape gangs in the UK, or the victims of Muslim migrant rapists in Germany and Sweden. They will all tell you that the West has absolutely nothing to be concerned about, and only racist, bigoted “Islamophobes” think otherwise.
Interviews in front of green screens are spliced and often overlaid with images of Muslims, terrorists, and anti-Muslim newspaper headlines to create the storyline. Despite having to crowd fund the production and advertisements for the film, the movie has a high production value.
“High production value” indeed. Thanks, SPLC.
In the documentary, notorious Islam bashers including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Geert Wilders, Lars Vilks, Bosch Fawstin, Milo Yiannopolous, Spencer and Geller come together to attack Islam and the so-called compliance of Western politicians and law enforcement, claiming both that Islam both threatens free speech and that Muslims are the victims of liberals who are trying to protect them.
Who could possibly get the crazy idea that Islam is any threat to the freedom of speech? It isn’t as if there is a global Islamic effort to compel non-Muslim countries to adopt Sharia blasphemy laws (details here).
Spencer, a prolific anti-Muslim propagandist, director of Jihad Watch, and co-founder of Stop Islamization of America, says at the beginning of the film “stay quiet and you’ll be okay is what the Islamic world is saying to the US … if we stay quiet they will think it’s okay until we are completely subjugated under Islamic law.”
Abdoulaye Wade, president of Senegal and former chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the international body driving the jihad against the freedom of speech, once said: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”
The film moves country-to-country, examining incidents involving Muslims around the world. While discussing the Netherlands, Bat Ye’Or — whose real name is Gisele Littman, a violently anti-Muslim person
“Violently” Really? Which Muslim did the diminutive Bat Ye’or violently attack?
who has written several books about the harsh oppression of non-Muslims by Muslims — raises the issue of immigration, explaining “this is why they immigrate, because immigration is extremely important for conversion. It is written in the Quran that Islamic Law must dominate the whole world.” This argument is regularly exploited by members of the anti-Muslim movement to advocate for immigration restriction but is completely unfounded.
“Completely unfounded”? Really? Yet the Qur’an says: “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers” (3:85). And regarding immigration: “And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him – his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah” (4:100).
Geert Wilders, another infamous leader in the anti-Muslim movement who has repeatedly compared the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf adds, “the common denominator of violence is Islam.” Wilders was previously banned from Britain out of concern his anti-Islamic views would trigger violence.
The SPLC doesn’t mention that the ban was lifted, or that the violence that might have been “triggered” if he was there would have come from Muslims.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an anti-Muslim extremist who has said Islam is at war with America, tells the camera that Muslims are actually being disrespected by liberals. “When people say drawing cartoons of Mohammed is disrespectful to Mohammed I say no you are being disrespectful to Muslims because if you agree that drawing cartoons of Jesus or Moses is sacred to other people, those non-Muslims have the maturity and the sanity not to respond with violence.” Ali explains. It is, in fact, considered blasphemous in Islam to have images of God.
This is just stupid on the SPLC’s part. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was referring to “drawing cartoons of Mohammed.” In response, the SPLC says: “It is, in fact, considered blasphemous in Islam to have images of God.” But Muslims don’t believe that Muhammad is God.
Raheem Kassam, editor-in chief of Breitbart London adds, “what is this actual racism or actual bigotry that the left hurls at Muslims to say you can’t handle criticism so we’re going to wrap you up in bubble wrap and defend you for you.”…
And this SPLC piece is a quintessential example of that phenomenon.
The film then shifts to Texas. Following the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, American Muslim leaders held a conference in Garland, Texas, “Stand With the Prophet Against Terror and Hate” in January 2015. Geller, outraged, planned her event in response, the “First Annual Mohammed Art Exhibit and Contest,” aimed at antagonizing the Muslim community. After two men attacked officers at the entrance of the event, the incident came to be known as the Curtin [sic] Culwell Center attack. This resulted in Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and other conservatives to denounce Pamela Geller’s attempt to incite the Muslim community.
In the twisted mind of the SPLC, reflected in the twisted language of that last sentence, if Muslims mount a jihad attack, it is the victim’s fault, for “inciting” the poor dears. The SPLC wants a world in which non-Muslims change their behavior to suit Muslim sensibilities and bow to death threats. This will only encourage more Muslim bullying and bring more demands for more accommodation. The SPLC, in short, wants us to stay quiet so that we’ll be okay.
As the film continues, Geller says law enforcement and politicians are afraid to act out of fear of being called islamophobic. She claims that “the people in San Bernardino saw all kinds of strange activity in the middle of the night, all this contraband to make bombs but didn’t want to say anything because they didn’t want to sound islamophobic.” Adding, “even if they said something I don’t think anything would’ve been done, law enforcement would have said oh that’s islamophobic.”…
A manifestly true statement, presented by the SPLC in true Leftist fashion as if it were self-evidently false, without any refutation provided.
“Your freedom is under siege, it’s under war and part of the war is keeping you disarmed,” Pamela Geller warns viewers. Yet, her own film highlights the ways in which American Freedom Defense Initiative has antagonized Muslims and attacked Islam in the name of free speech.
So you see: we must give up the freedom of speech so as to avoid antagonizing Muslims. The SPLC is working hard in this war, to keep you disarmed.
Missy Gray says
Islam has no place in the Free World. Islam is worst than Nazism. PERIOD!
John Forbes says
ISLAM is the NEW FASCISM & probably far more dangerous than the Fascists of Franco, Mussolini or Hiller because of the political ties in our countries & their support from the LEFT !
Labor in the UK is joined at the HIP with CORBYN & Andy Burham being two of the main allies !
CORBYN will not get the CHILD RAPING-PIMPING of white, HINDU or SIKH children on the agenda at all & openly supports Pakistani NAZ SHAH who stated that abused girls need to SHUT UP for the sake of DIVERSITY !
TRUDEAU is a know & open supported of all things to do with ISLAM & is working with hsi Liberals & the MUSLIM Brotherhood to end FREE SPEECH in Canada !
Teresa MAY & her HOUSE OF COWARDS will not go near ISLAM as the whole place is Compromised by M/East cash & agreements !
UKIP has just elected a POMPOUS BEAUROCRAT rather than Anne Marie Waters who certainly would have tackled many of the ISLAMIC issues – Child Raping , Sharia , Hatred of Gays , all other faiths & FGM & the total abuse of Women !
Not a good scenario for Western Democracies !!
Paul Rhodes says
AS my old Derbyshire Mum would say John “politics is a dirty game”. You name May and Corbyn in the UK and Trudeau here in Canada. It’s actually irrelevant who happens to be leading the Party in power or in fact which Party is in power. The Muslim world in general but the GCC countries in particular, are strategic to both the UK and USA.They are massive buyers of our exports and in particular, arms ! Trump recently signed the biggest arms deal ever with the KSA. I spent much of my life commuting around the Muslim world. GCC countries are major funders of UK and US debt requirements and inward investment. Iran is the next big market.In fact when I was working in Iran in the 1990’s Japanese, Chinese and German companies were doing good business. ALL of my Muslim partners had properties or estates in either UK or USA. The Binladen family had a big house on, from memory, Kensington Church St. The vast majority of Muslims have no interest in Jihad. Problem is that through tactics like Jihad bi al LIsan, Jihad bi al Kalam, Takiyya etc we never know which are and are not ! One needs a very good understanding of The Quran, Sunnah and Sharia to know what the duties and obligations on all true Muslims are. Politicians in Westminster and Ottawa do not have this knowledge. They must go along with the edicts passed down by their Parties hierarchy. We have a situation that until recently the media referred to as “The perfect storm”
WorkingClassPost says
The SPLC are big on lists, so perhaps they could provide us with a list of things we can do that won’t antagonise muslims.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Rather than debate face to face, these sly con artists use lawfare, because their arguments are shown to be spurious when challenged by facts.
This is asymmetrical warfare with multimillions coming from millionaire globalists and Islamic oil money and the counterjihad relying on the grass roots.
What we are seeing is the ascendancy of truly evil people with an agenda of world dominance and repression of human rights.
I don’t understand how they can be so evil. The love of money explains some, but not all of their evil.
Juhani says
Clearly there is a bigger evil that is able to manipulate minds and his age does not fit into a human lifetime. But may these people be evil by their deepest nature, their soul.
Human soul is an image of God, able to create new information using free will. That image has become broken and comes more destructive every day until repaired by Jesus Christ (see Luke 2:14).
b.a. freeman says
U have to understand that islam was designed to appeal to every criminal from every criminal enterprise known. if U want money, U can steal money as a muslim and become more pious. if U want to rape women, U can rape women as a muslim and become more pious. if U want to rape children of either or both genders, U can do so as a muslim and become more pious. in fact, i can’t think of a single crime that does not make a pious muslim a better muslim and draw him closer to allah. there have always been criminals who prey on other people in every society, so muhammed designed his cult to appeal to all of them. *that’s* why these monsters are so devoted to their mental disease.
John S. Obeda says
Perhaps it is acceptable to say even though God is omniscient that God Himself was “surprised” how thoroughly evil man became. So God couldn’t stand it anymore and He sent the flood. Another surprise for us is that even so, God sent us a Saviour.
Westman says
The SPLC – “An all-star lineup of opportunistic parasites”
gravenimage says
Spot on, Westman.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
What an objective press is supposed to do on any controversy is research the facts of the matter and publish them. I still haven’t seen a report on the factual accuracy of Geller’s documentary. The same went for the reportage around the video Innocence of Muslims just after Benghazi. Our leaders all denounced the video as awful and an exercise in hate speech that misrepresented Islam. That was the impression imprinted on the minds of the public. I watched the video, and saw no inaccuracy in it.
Where is the factual review of Can’t We Talk About This? There is none, and there won’t be one. If one were produced, it could lead to violence. As in the scene in the South Park episode on Mohammed, it’s better to keep our heads buried in the sand.
Barguest says
APF, you’re right: there’ll be no such review of Can’t We Talk About This. Certainly not from the MSM or its leftist water carriers in the online community. The MSM has no interest in *facts*, its primary objectives are:
1) virtue signalling to influence public opinion
2) ensuring adherence to The Narrative (and we all know its articles of faith, beginning with islam = peace)
3) punishing those who deviate from The Narrative.
In these Orwellian times there is no longer any objective truth (even though *we* know there is), and the wrong kind of ‘truth’ is labelled ‘hate speech’.
Depressing.
gravenimage says
Alarmed Pig Farmer wrote:
I still haven’t seen a report on the factual accuracy of Geller’s documentary.
…………….
Grimly true, APF–and likely we won’t. This does not say anything good about the state of the press today.
Keys says
There is no factual review, and as you say won’t be, because “We Can’t Talk About This”. Their silence makes the resounding point of the film.
Michael says
I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy either. Islam is blasphemy and ought to be banned.
Barguest says
No Michael, I can’t agree with that. The *ideas* of islam should be disseminated widely, thoroughly examined and evaluated honestly. That, I will grant you, is not happening to the extent that it should. However, *actions* predicated on the tenets of islam should, where they run counter to secular law, be punished with severity. Thus, praying five times a day is ok, so long as it’s not causing a public nuisance (the adhan should be subject to same restrictions as any other aural irritant); but slaughtering the kuffar, as commanded by the quran, should be handled with extreme sanction (and a pigskin shroud for the perp).
Unlike leftists and SJWs, who equate words with actual physical violence, I would hope that we in the counter-jihad community can spot the distinction between *thoughts* and *deeds*.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Barguest. Islam needs to be *exposed*. That is what Jihad Watch is for.
Barguest says
Absolutely. And I think we all applaud Robert, and his fellow writers here, for their sterllng work in exposing the horrors of islam to the public gaze. Long may they continue.
gravenimage says
🙂
eduardo odraude says
Muhammad affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered
On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:
Norger says
The SPC is doing what one does when he can’t challenge the merits of an opposing point of view; “they’re all notorious ‘all star’ Islamophobes!” I guess that settles it then doesn’t it? Nothing to see here but a bunch of ‘Islamophobes,’ move along.” If Robert Spencer et al are so clearly wrong, why not appoint a chosen representative to engage substantively with him in debate, in a neutral forum, and expose his ‘supposed bigotry for all to see? I think we both know what would happen, which is why the only argument theSPC has is name-calling. Pathetic.
b.a. freeman says
but they have trained all of us in the leftist indoctrination centers that pass for public schools to believe that free speech is only for the majority opinion, and that the majority has the right to silence the minority. thus, most americans don’t recognize that the name-calling SPLC is a regressive group of brownshirts. free people who know a bit of history (not much knowledge is necessary) know that the SPLC and the left in general are only capable of pathetic arguments, but their brutal tactics work; few are doing anything about them.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him – his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah” (4:100)
What does it mean to be an emigrant “to” Allah? Does this mean that Allah is not omnipresent? And how can one emigrate to Allah’s Messenger, who has been dead for over a thousand years? The reward for such an emigrant is “incumbent” (as a duty or obligation) upon Allah? Who is imposing this duty on Allah, whose omnipotence and freedom of will is thereby limited? Exegesis welcome.
gravenimage says
Just means doing what Muhammed and “Allah” would want them to–go to a place where they can either impose Shari’ah immediately (like the Islamic State) or where they can slaughter Infidels. Either way–as pious Muslims see it–it furthers the cause of Islam.
eduardo odraude says
Does anyone know what the cross streets are for that big marquee advertising Can’t We Talk About This? I walked around Times Square area a bit looking for the marquee but did not see it.
gravenimage says
Eduardo, the above is Broadway and 43rd–I recognize the Starbucks and Nasdaq sign. There also appears to be one at Broadway and 47th, above the Dos Caminos Mexican restaurant.
gravenimage says
SPLC reviews AFDI’s film “Can’t We Talk About This?”: “All-star lineup of Islamophobes”
………………………
Nothing but grotesque calumny from SPLC against the brave Anti-Jihadists. But then, considering the source, this comes as no surprise.
Guest says
Since when do the SPLC rate movies?
TL says
Just skakin’ the money trees opportunistically.
gravenimage says
SPLC is using this “review” as another opportunity to smear Anti-Jihadists. I doubt they are actually directly making money on this “review”, as would a professional reviewer.
gravenimage says
Good question, Guest. Siskel and Ebert they ain’t.
TL says
Someone should explain to the SPLC intern who wrote “hype the alarm” the difference between the mind of an alarmist and the mind(s) of the people (SPLC) who are hyping the alarmist’s alarm for profit.
Now, here is…
AN EXAMPLE OF LECTURING: “Your freedom is under siege, it’s under war and part of the war is keeping you disarmed,”
Well, yes, all true. But how many people are persuaded by the browbreating of a lecture? esp. when they think that they have the situation all figured out? If few, would a more effective technique be to ask perplexing questions? Or, at least, to ask questions which get under the skin of what’s his name at SPLC?
Lefty loves to think that he’s an open minded paragon of rationalism. He even gets tattoos to express the idea. (Really. I know one Antifa type guy in Chicago with such a tat on his right arm. He is soooooo proud of it.) Lefty is also proud to remain uncertain about something, even hostile to learning the truth about it, when the issue is complex. So can you exploit that nihilism by throwing him back into into uncertainty with perplexing questions? which lead to estrangement from his friends and acquaintances when they learn that he’s drifting toward “Islamophobia”? and then fill in his mental void a little later?
b.a. freeman says
absolutely! lefty is all about showing how *smart* he is as well as how virtuous he is, and is more than willing to lecture a know-nothing or a knuckle-dragging right-winger with The Truth. U can take advantage of this by asking him questions about islam after saying that somebody should tell the truth about islam to shut up these stupid right-wingers. ask him how many anti-muslim and anti-muhammed documents have come down to us from the time of the first muslims, and wonder if that could be the source of criticisms of islam (the *only* information we have about muhammed and the first muslims comes from the quran, hadith collections, and the sirat rasul allah, the scriptures of islam). ask him what this abrogation thing in islam is all about (when there is a conflict in the quran, the ayat (verses) “revealed” later abrogate the earlier ayat). ask him for a brief history of islam (he might know something, but probably not much). ask him after whom the muslim should pattern himself (muhammed, who is the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil) and the model of conduct (uswa hasana) for muslims).
the bottom line is that *we* must be well-informed enough to be able to answer everything we ask lefty about islam. he’ll be so proud to be asked that he might even look up the answers himself (although with the google nazis now misdirecting searches about islam, that might now be less effective). if *lefty* is the one who discovers the truth, he is more likely to believe it than if he is shown up by a knuckle-dragger like U or i.
Lydia says
Well the SPLC is an ALL STAR LINE UP OF TRUTHOPHOBES!
SLANDER, PROPAGANDA, LIBEL, AND CONDEMN = SPLC
Or…
SLANDER, PERSECUTE, LIE, AND CRIMINALIZE
as the BIGGEST HATE GROUP EVER does best against its target victims; the truth tellers!
Sarah says
Eh, I’m going to take a leaf out of the African American community’s book here; and suggest that perhaps its time we start reclaiming the word, ‘Islamaphobia’.
I’m not scared to be labelled an Islamaphobe. I do not fear it. Its just a very silly, made up word that has been grasped most enthusiastically by the Muslims and their supporters, like SPLC and the Left.
Words can wound, words can hurt – but only if you allow them to. As far as I’m concerned, calling me an Islamaphobe is about as insulting or upsetting as calling me a Synthetic, or a Vase or a Magnolia. Meaning it has no meaning, it makes no sense, it has no weight behind it and it is ludicrous.
b.a. freeman says
it’s not that the words hurt; after all, few of us here care what idiots say about us. the problem is that one can lose his job if condemnation becomes widespread. one can even be sued for defamation; U could win, but lawyers can keep the case going for years, so long that U have to sell your house and everything U own in order to fight the lawsuit. given enough time and *money*, U can win, but if U have to keep showing up in court and spending money on lawyers, they will win, because they have more time and more money than U do. it’s called lawfare, and although it’s a lot more effective in eurabia and countries that don’t have constitutionally-protected speech (because laws against free speech are being passed there), it’s still pretty effective in the u.s.
the nazis are perilously close to destroying the republic.
More Ham Ed says
If you disagree you have a “phobia” of some kind, or you’re committing “hate” or you’re some kind of “monger” (the leftist/islamist/cair/splc propaganda machine).
John Forbes says
If it is one thing the followers & preachers of ISLAM HATE it is examination of the TEXTS & TEACHINGS !
A good look at FINSBURY MOSQUE -Under Cover on You Tube as one source is an interesting one !
Nothing but HATRED for everyone else from the WAHABI SECT !
Then an examination of the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood is also well worth looking at carefully !
Track the SPREAD of MOSQUES & the Change of preachers is also well worth the effort ! Mosques in Australia start with a rather MILD IMAM & as the Muslim Numbers increase the IMAM is replaced with a SAUDI WAHABI TRAINED one & then the HATRED really takes off with Christians & Jews & Hindu;s & Sikhs & Others being referred to as FILTH !