Top Menu

Pamela Geller Indicts Loonwatch “Smear Machine” for Ban from UK

Pamela Geller

Loonwatch did not play a direct role in having Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer banned from the UK. We’re opposed to using the apparatus of the state to curtail free speech.

The ideal response to objectionable free speech is more free speech.

We do, however, appreciate free advertising. When we’re being publicly denounced by notorious ant-Muslim bigots, we know we must be doing something right.

Documents reveal British banned Geller and Spencer because of their ‘pro-Israeli views’

by Pamela Geller, The Daily Caller

(H/T: HeGG)

The British government tried to cover its tracks. But a new cache of documents Robert Spencer and I have received in our battle to overturn our being banned from Britain reveal that a chief reason why we were banned from the country was because we strongly support Israel…

….It is breathtaking – the amount of time, money, and human resources devoted to this Kafkaesque exercise. These venerable agencies begin their in-depth and comprehensive research at — wait for this — Wikipedia. From there, they cite to each other such notorious and reputable smear machines as Loonwatch and Islamophobia Today. Senior analysts from Asia, the Middle East and Europe were part of the research and information team. Our case had “very senior scrutiny,” as there was a “need to push” on this research. Mind you, much of the material in these documents were redacted. Wouldn’t the unredacted documents have made interesting reading?

All reference to the identities of those who asked that we be banned have been blacked out. Henry Ripley, writing “for the Treasury Solicitor,” explained to our lawyers that “the documents provided have been redacted to remove references to information which is not relevant to the claims.” No, clearly the documents were redacted to conceal who was behind the ban and what their motives were, and to conceal the conspiratorial nature of the exclusion.

It is amusing to read the back-and-forth when these geniuses begin to discover that we had no plans to come in February. They decide that “it doesn’t mean that they’ve [EDL] given up on the idea” of bringing us over, “and it would be a blow to their credibility if they did.” I find it interesting how badly they wanted to damage the EDL’s credibility. They were so bent on this that they had an informant within the EDL, from whom they say they were getting this information.

Through March and April they continued to pursue the elusive and non-existent engagement that Robert and I had never agreed to attend, spoken about attending, or even discussed attending among ourselves. This crack research team has one eureka moment when one of the redacted names “has discovered circa 120 articles written by Geller on one website alone[!] In order to go through this properly, we need another week to conduct our research.” More time. More money. More people.

“The government,” one document says, “is clear that it opposes extremism in all forms.” Does it oppose extremism in pursuit of truth? Does it oppose extremism in pursuit of justice? Of liberty? How ridiculous they are, tying themselves in knots at the behest of their would-be executioners.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and [quite possibly the Looniest Blogger Ever.]

Read the full article here.


, , , , , ,

  • eslaporte

    You’re right, it’s a fine line. However – I would support banning Geert Wilders from entering the US. Nothing Wilders argues is remotely true and are outright hateful myths that can easily be proven to be false, wrong and lies. Wilders travels and speech amount to that spread of hateful myths about Muslims in the Netherlands, Europe and America. Wilders myths have helped create what amounts to a police state for Muslims and a free state for everyone else in the Netherlands.
    Bans are problematic – but in the case of Geert Wilders – it’s totally justified. Wilders brings nothing but hateful myths where ever he goes…

  • Guess

    The loonwatch writers have posted plenty about her, just put her name in the LW search engine.

  • Ray786

    Great!! I’m glad to find this website denouncing these phobia enticing wastes of matter, especially ones that can stop them from spreading their hate in other countries, hahahaaa, kudos ….. btw, I’m sure you guys have also heard of Brigitte Gabriel, the Islamophobe running in NEOCON circles as a model of integrity when she is nothing but a hateful phobia filled animal that in my opinion should also be fully aired out for her bogus rants against Muslims …. she’s part of the hasbara (Zionists supporters of Israel) that gets away with hate filled speech …… one by one, these turds should be exposed so they know their are consequences to free speech as well ….. I’d love someone to expose her for the fraud she is …… any who, glad to have found this website!!

  • Ilisha

    …stopping Spencer and Geller from entering the UK isn’t really limiting their free speech.

    I’m not sure what you mean, unless your argument is that they’re merely depriving them of a particular venue–they can still speak in the US and other countries, and also through their websites.

    That’s true. But I think there is still a difference between governments limiting free speech and private venues. If a hotel or conference center stops Geller from speaking there, they deprive her of a venue. But they aren’t able to stop other hotels and conference centers from hosting her, or to block her website from public view.

    The UK government can in fact decide, on similar grounds, that her website is incitement too, and block that as well. Authoritarian regimes block websites, and even less authoritarian regimes sometimes do–more than people might realize. The UK government can also decide the EDL shouldn’t be able to assemble at all, because that’s incitement too. And so on.

    It’s not just about Geller’s right to speak that’s in question, but also the British people’s right to hear what she has to say.

    I know some people probably think the arguments I’ve made on this thread are paranoid and perhaps are false equivalence. The idea the US is curtailing people from protest might seem only vaguely related to stopping foreign nationals from entering the UK to make incendiary speeches. Apples and oranges.

    But my argument is that free speech is a fragile right. If the countries that champion “freedom and democracy” could be trusted to live up to that ideal, then I don’t necessarily think depriving Pam and Bobbie of this venue would be a big deal.

    Obviously there are a lot of people who are quite content to let the government intervene. But governments absolutely do have the power to curtail free speech, and often do. So let’s just hope the UK stops at denying entry to foreigners deemed troublemakers–and that they continue to use reasonable criteria to discern who those “troublemakers’ are. I’m not crying for Pam, but governments can and do have the power to curtail free speech.

  • SarahAB

    Agree, I think. Although it should be noted that stopping Spencer and Geller from entering the UK isn’t really limiting their free speech. But it does have the distracting effect of allowing them to present themselves as free speech martyrs. I had the same feelings about Wilders – I wanted him to be allowed into the UK so that the focus could be on his unpleasant ideas, not his right to free speech (which I’d support).

  • The greenmantle

    your phone number ?
    Sex ? I dont mean male or female I mean how often ;
    Its a scary world out there best to laugh at it
    Sir David

  • Mehdi

    Hi there, I’m not saying we should be passive.
    As I wrote previously, it’s not about laughing at them exclusively, as I said we should “confront them, laugh at them OR ignore them”, indeed a strategy based on only ignoring them can only fail, and extremism has to be confronted, by exposing their bigotry/stupidity, voting against them when they run for office, campaigning in some circumstances, etc.
    What I meant by ignoring is that in some circumstances it can be the best strategy, some debates are not worth being dragged into, but in other cases it’s important to speak up and fight back within the democratic tools we have at hand.
    It’s about picking the right tool based on the circumstance, nothing less.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    Haha… I do wonder what’s in my Hasbara file…

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    I disagree. I mean, yes, we should laugh at them. I take it a step further and actively mock them. But we cannot just sit back and take their crap. Especially not with people like Wilders who wield political capital. We have to take the initiative and actively campaign against them. We have to vote them out of office, we have to show the public that they are full of shit. If we allow people like Wilders and King to continue to hold power, they will use it against us. That’s the real danger.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    As I said, much as I may dislike her, she has freedom of speech, at least in America. She doesn’t have the freedom to do whatever the hell she wants in some other part of the world. She’s not a British subject, so she has no “right” to do anything in Britain. Considering the sheer racism in her anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rants, I would say that many countries like Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Bahrain, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and the like would also be within their rights to ban her. Permanently.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    Oh, I think so. The thing is, Loonwatch is legitimately dangerous to the Islamophobia industry. If people only read Spencer and Pipes and the rest of those clowns, they would get a distorted image of Islam, full of lies, bigotry and outright hatred. If they search around the internet or go to their library, or better yet, visit local mosques, they will get a more even handed portrayal of Islam. Spencer, Geller and the lot can’t have that; they wouldn’t be able to pose as experts and milk money out of people.

    More to the point, not only does LW expose Spencer, Geller and the other professional Islamophobes, but it actually HUMILIATES them. It shows where they are wrong, where they are lying… that’s a big deal. It helps to mobilize people against them. So the Islamophobes NEED to counter sites like LW. Of course, flattering as it is to think that they have a single minded agenda against us, its more likely that they seek out ANY site or news story that has a positive view of Islam and proceed to attack it. Still, it is funny to watch them get their panties in a knot.

  • Ilisha

    Actually, I agree with on the difference of opinion, and I agree the motivations and evidence are not equal.

    I also don’t think the difference between our views is as stark as it might appear at first glance. I just have two reservations.

    The first is with blocking people from speaking, rather than just letting them have their say. I think if Geller and Spencer had been allowed to speak, it would have caused less commotion and resulted in less free advertising and howling about how they were wronged.

    The second is that I don’t apparently trust the authorities as much as you do, in terms of seeing what’s “obvious.” It’s obvious to me that Alwaki’s innocent teenage son, a US citizen, didn’t deserve to be vaporized because of his father’s thought crimes. But that apparently wasn’t obvious to the US government.

    Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki’s Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs ‘Far More Responsible Father’

    The less the government is involved in deciding who I can and can’t listen to, the better. Maybe the situation in the UK is different, but I think under the guise of “fighting terrorism,” our government is trying to keep people from hearing foreign policy grievances that might just enlighten people–in ways that hurt their agenda.

    Having said that, I don’t want to sound like a hardcore, anti-government libertarian. I’m not, which is why I say I have a “libertarian streak.” But I think healthy skepticism is warranted, especially when our rights are already eroding considerably.

    Years ago, when we marched in D.C. against the Iraq war (April 2002), it was easy to get a permit. We moved freely, and friendly police officers waved at us and smiled. Later the sent riot police, confined us to specific areas, and treated us like potential criminals. Sometimes at local protests, there are people standing at various vantage points, taking notes and sometimes, we’re followed when we leave. It’s very creepy, and that didn’t happen just a few years ago.

    Police have also started tasing people and shooting them with rubber bullets. We were spared, I think, from the worst of it because activists took to recording on their mobile devices, and chanting, “The whole world is watching!”

    Finally the tactic became a media blackout. How many people have even noticed the DC protests of the past seem to have disappeared? That’s in part because of the media blackout, and in part because they curtail protesters by various means–withholding permits, confining us to small areas, etc.

    We’ve had to resort to creative tactics. For example, we can protest without a permit if we hold hands because it isn’t technically a protest. So we used to hold up place cards, and if the police showed up, we’ve drop the signs and hold hands. Other activists have blocked traffic using their bicycles, which is technically not illegal. Employing these tactics felt ridiculous to me, and I just stopped bothering, which was probably the goal.

    If you’re not actually involved in activist on-the-ground activist work, I think it’s less obvious what’s happening. Power is being seized, and this impulse should be resisted.

    So that’s the overarching theme that shapes most of my views. I don’t want the government involved in deciding who is an who is not allowed to speak because of the implications for everyone.

    But I do see your point, and maybe you’re right, or maybe we’re both partially right. I really don’t think there is an absolute right or wrong, as the territory is a bit murky. I just land on the side of letting people have their say.

  • Bob

    “You think the ban was justified in one case and not the other. I would imagine the folks at HP, for example, would have a different opinion.”

    Obviously there’s a difference of opinion between anti-racists and Islamophobes like HP on who should be allowed into the UK.

    Anti-racists want to ban people from entering the country who have made it clear they intend to incite hatred against minority communities. HP want to ban certain Muslims from entering the country even when there is no real evidence that they intend to incite hatred against anyone.

    If you think there’s an equals sign between these two positions, you really have lost the plot.

  • Ilisha

    It strikes me as odd to take a matter like this to court. I’m not sure that would be helpful here. In the US, the courts have taken to punishing people for thought crimes. All the way up to the federal level.

    I do see your point–and Bob’s–but routinely banning contentious speakers still seems ripe for abuse. Even without the help of the courts, the US has taken to detaining and harassing obviously harmless visitors like Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) and Shahrukh Khan.

    King of Bollywood Detained in the US….Again

    I can see our loons becoming quite litigious if they thought they could get anyone they don’t like banned, especially in the current climate. If they’ve set their sites on a target who is brown and Muslim, they’re probably halfway there even before they file the case.

    However, your point down thread is well taken.

    Who needs Pam when you have Mad Mel? I wouldn’t blame anyone in the UK for being delighted over the decision to ban Pam and Bobbie, broader issues aside.

  • The greenmantle

    Incidently the Deacon and Pammy are not the only citizens of the USA to be denied entry to the UK .
    A Mr Savage whom I believe to be what is termed a shock jock and Leaders of a self help group called the KKK are also banned.
    Anyway why do we need Pammy in the UK when we have Mad Mel Phillips who has the added advantage of being able to write with out making up words .
    Sir David

  • The greenmantle

    Who decides who’s right ? Well in the end its the courts in the UK who decide .
    Pammy is appealling … Well not very appealling to me . But she is going through the court system to challenge the decision of the secrety of State to ban her . Fortunetly for us and unfortunetly for her articals like the one she has written above are not going to impress the judges :-)
    Sir David

  • The greenmantle

    Unfortunetly Wilders won on appeal because of the Treaty of Rome and got to show his film.
    Ironically Catholic priest Rev deacon Robert Spencer is not covered by the Treaty of Rome :-)
    I did wonder if the “Mann” Act could be used to cover Pam but thats just my little joke ( Its the act that forbids the movement of woman across state lines for Immoral Purposes in the USA.)
    Sir David

  • The greenmantle

    Hasbara ?
    As I said on another thread I am convinced there is organised Trolling on Loonwatch .
    Its what I would do if I was “on the other side”
    Sir David

  • Suada

    The justice or injustice of a cause may in large part be measured by the ethics displayed by those who uphold it. Consequently, the people
    who wage Geller/Spencer’s campaign do so in the most dishonest and malicious manner possible. Their campaign is fundamentally an expression of hatred of not only Muslims, but of those who do not share their worldview. So their tactics are of the most hateful kind, involving systematic character assassination and racist and Islamophobic abuse of
    those who speak against them.

    Of course Geller has a right to say what she wants, I’m not advocating she be silenced or anything, And I would defend her right to do so. But Britain is under no obligation to allow her to enter the country to address an EDL rally.

Powered by Loon Watchers