Noisome Times of London Article Says Pamela Geller Should Be Allowed Into UK

from ATLAS

what a bunch of total ASSHOLES these people truly are

Noisome Times of London Article Says Pamela Geller Should Be Allowed Into UK

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/07/noisome-times-of-london-article-says-pamela-geller-should-be-allowed-into-uk.html

 

 

Noisome: offensive to the senses and especially to the sense of smell; highly obnoxious or objectionable. That's what this unsigned editorial in the Times of London calls me. But if anything smells, it is this editorial itself. It reeks of elitism even as it calls for my being allowed into the UK, and has no substantive criticism of my work, but only heaps ill-informed and inaccurate abuse upon it. 

 

Please contribute to our legal fund to fight the ban here.

Don’t Bar the Demagogue: A noisome anti-Muslim campaigner should be allowed entry Times of London July 6, 2013 (scan thanks to TMI)

Pamela Geller is an obscure American blogger with insanitary opinions. She and an associate called Robert Spencer sought entry to Britain last month to attend a rally by the far-right English Defence League. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, intervened to ensure that they were barred.

Obscure: yes, so obscure that Theresa May thought me such a threat that it was worth the trouble to ban me from entering the country.

An associate called Robert Spencer: see the elitism and ignorance wrapped in arrogance. Robert Spencer is a bestselling author who has advised the FBI, the CIA and the US military on Islam. If the Times hasn't heard of him, it only shows how obscure they are.

Insanitary: So unclean as to be a likely cause of disease. Yes, and that disease is the truth.

Geller is planning legal action to overturn the ban. It would be a good thing if she succeeded. Her propaganda is inflammatory and her opinions are ignorant and absurd. But ministerial fiat to deny someone entry for expressing offensive views is a bad precedent.

Propaganda, inflammatory, ignorant, absurd, offensive: the Times can't pile the smear words on quickly enough. And what is behind them? A willfully ignorant head-in-the-sand unwillingness to face the reality of jihad and Islamic supremacism:

The toxic character of Geller and Spencer’s opinions is beyond argument. They advance preposterous conspiracy theories about a supposedly malign incursion of Islam in Western societies. Their language has ominous echoes of the notorious anti-Semitic fabrication The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but applied to Muslims. Geller defends Radovan Karadzic, now on trial at the Hague, and denies the documented facts of the genocide of Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995.

The Muslim Brotherhood declared in a captured internal document that their goal in the U.S. was "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," and we're advancing preposterous conspiracy theories? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fabrication; this document is real.
The Times says I defend Karadzic, but actually, I have posted a piece that said quite clearly: “I am not defending Radovan Karadzic...” Is what the Times is doing here journalism?

Anyway, as for Srebrenica, I quoted information from former BBC journalist Jonathan Rooper here:

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.

As Spencer says: "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."

Geller and Spencer’s aim is to spread discord. That makes them unwelcome visitors, serving a noisome cause. But the criterion for barring entry should be more stringent than mere demagoguery. The previous Labour Government imposed a ban on Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim politician, on similar grounds. He managed to overturn it on appeal. The judges ruled wisely. Preserving free speech is more fundamental to this country’s ethos than maintaining social cohesion.

Discord: no, our aim is to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, individual rights, and equal rights for all before the law. For this we get smeared by the Times.

Anti-Muslim: sure, and Churchill was anti-German.

Inflaming tensions is not the same as inciting violence. Banning campaigners because their views may provoke violence is wrong. It gives an incentive to opponents to create disorder. The better course is to allow extremists to discredit themselves by the brutishness of their sentiments. And in that field at least, Geller is accomplished.

The Times is defaming me in numerous ways, and it is I who am brutish? This is brutish journalism.