Top Menu

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Abhijit Pandya

Abhijit Pandya

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Over at Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller directs us to an article which she describes as a “thoughtful and stunning indictment of the latest tribulation in our legal battle against the de facto sharia ban on Robert Spencer and me in the UK”. The article, entitled “The end of free speech in Britain”, reveals the welcome news that last week a British court rejected Geller and Spencer’s appeal against the home secretary’s decision last June to ban them from entering the UK.

The name of the author, Abhijit Pandya – described by Geller as “one of our British solicitors” – may be familiar. That’s because Pandya has established his own reputation for frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobia. Back in 2011, when he stood as the UK Independence Party candidate in the Leicester South parliamentary by-election, Pandya wrote a blog post in which he described Islam as “morally flawed and degenerate”and declared his agreement with Geert Wilders’ view of the faith as a “retarded ideology”. He added: “Islamic culture inherently rejects the Western way of life, more specifically the Protestant work ethic that has successfully built the economies of the West.”

The local paper, the Leicester Mercury, published an editorial condemning Pandya’s blog post as “a wildly inflammatory rant which boiled down to a crass and nasty characterisation of Muslims as lazy, intolerant spongers who are a threat to the British way of life. It was not part of a reasoned debate about multiculturalism, but a series of sweeping, unsubstantiated generalisations which demonise the Muslim community.”

So, clearly, Pandya was an entirely appropriate individual to act as Geller and Spencer’s legal representative in the UK.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Kay24

    Pam the hate yeller sounds sore that at least one nation had the courage to ban her from entering their space and polluting it with her hatred, and bigotry, against Arabs and Muslims. Her buddy Geert Wilders, islamaphobe from the Netherlands, and Pam, have spread hatred within their nations, and no nation should allow them in to pollute their shores. I guess they will be welcome in Israel, the country she professes her loyalty to.

  • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

    This person attempted to discuss the ideology taking place surrounding the issue of ‘abortion’ in America.
    Catholics have ‘invented’ a new way to discuss ‘anti abortion’, trying to make is sound as if forced termination as in ‘eugenics’ is the same as the medical procedure.

    What Catholics FAIL to understand is that eugenics is not really science, but the same as any ideology that promotes the superiority of one over another made to sound scientific.

    In the claim that we can breed humans for better qualities, someone…a ‘higher power’ gets to decide for everyone else who is ‘superior’, in the same way a religion has a ‘chosen people’.

    In other words…as we have seen in Biblical history, as will as the history of our world what people who believe they are ‘superior’ or ‘exceptional’ over someone else can do.

    Remember, these ‘chosen’, ‘superior’ and or ‘exceptional’ (in their minds and ideology) people believed they were right, and it ended in the destruction of many cultures, religions, and millions of people throughout history.

    So holding these ‘anti abortionist’ to the clinical meaning of ‘abortion’ keeps them from gaining a foot hole into controlling the conversation to promote their religious views disquised as science.

  • Funny one Geller. Look up the discussion of Abu Hanifa and the atheist. The debate may not interest you, but the fact is it was British law and not shariah that rejected you. Maybe we SHOULD have shariah in Britain, so that you can feel the need to spout, feel stupid, and then run away ashamed… should you feel obligated.

  • It is easy to see it this way unless you also include the fact that it was politicians and preachers who stood in the way of doctors simply bleeding you and sending you home for measles. US law and Shariah law are very close in agreement on abortion, with 1st trimester abortion widely accepted and later period intrusion more problematic or refused.

    Choosing healthcare is not only a personal matter, but one of policy (politics) and ethics (ideology even secular and religious).

    I am glad for these resources as I would hate to have to get help for a serious illness amongst snake oil salesmen in the yellow pages.

    You are right on one point homo – by man cide – to kill as opposed to judicide – judi – by law – cide – to kill.

  • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

    First….The one thing I really don’t care about is what people think of Islam or Muhammad. That may sound strange, coming from a Muslim…but it all goes to your right to feel how you want, and express that out loud if you feel it is needed.
    As long as your disagreement does not impose on me by force, you can feel any way you want about Islam, Muhammad, or anything else. I wish more of my brothers and sisters of Islam would l
    I don’t take insult, such as burning Qur’ans as personal, or against Islam. It is a reflection on the person who feels the need to incite anger, and when he doesn’t get it, he loses his point and looks like a fool. My personal opinion on that is…by the time it takes one Qur’an to be consumed by a fools attempt to incite anger, 500 Qur’ans are coming fresh off the press around the world waiting for eager readers.

  • Freddy Neat Shee

    I think if you add in “governments” in addition to the generic “entities”, I would agree with you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the disasters caused by the nazis would not have been possible had the entire government (and thus, the “color of law”) not been behind it.

    The point I was trying to argue for the last few days has been that just because a science or technology has been used by very bad people to very bad ends, doesn’t necessarily make the science itself bad. I was pointing out that since you are not in favor of eugenics, and a big part of eugenics when applied to humans is the forced termination of a pregnancy, that it would follow that you would also be against the forced termination of pregnancies if you were to show integrity in your belief system (to wit: “I hate nazi science”, by which you meant eugenics). It seemed weird that you would be absolutely against a branch of science but yet in favor of medical procedures developed or perfected in the pursuit of that branch of science.

    It would be like saying “I hate pig’s blood”, but being OK with porcine blood products administered to diabetics as insulin (which is where 60+ % of all insulin in the US comes from).

    You also seem to be of the opinion that IQ tests do not measure intelligence, or that 10% of 3kg is not less than 10% of 3.5kg, and that such measurements are automatically invalid because they are derived from studies used in eugenics, which is a “Science” also used by nazis, and thus is not “blessed” by you.

    I also noticed a distinct difference in your tone once you realized that I was not talking against abortion. When you were under the impression that I was, the level of your response can only be described as that of a religious fundamentalist — it was as though I was insulting your Prophet. It’s one thing to not be against something. It’s quite another to be worshipful of something. You may want to consider why you have such a strong reaction to things like that — it can’t be good for your health.

  • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

    Excellent, we are both against entities, philosophies, ideologies, and religions that present themselves as science and legality to take way a woman’s (or anyone) right to chose for themselves.

  • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

    Umm…

    You don’t get your own definition to words. If you bring up ‘abortion’ in the context of pregnancy and gestation, the word is a medical term, and we use the medical term to discuss it to stay on topic.

    Remember, science and medicine do not determine right and wrong. Science does not give us morals and ethics. The science and medicine we use now is only derived from the gathering of evidences we have now, and is the best plausible explanation we have today.

    What you are trying to do is the same thing Europeans tried to do by claiming that Eugenics is science. They tried to make an ideology sound intellectual, and scientific. This was to legalize genocide…and the Nazis used Eugenics as intended.

  • Nur Alia binti Ahmad

    I agreed to DISCUSS (not argue) your comment within the context of your presentation. You presented ‘abortion’, and you used the context of pregnancy and gestation of a human embryo/fetus.
    My defining the term ‘abortion’ within the medical context was to keep the conversation on topic, and not allow you (an apologist for the ideology of ‘anti abortion’) to change the topic, or change the use of the term to promote your ideology.
    There never was an ‘argument’ or ‘debate’, or anything else between you and I as to…a woman’s right to chose (in this case) her own destiny as far as her body, and her health.
    I am a woman, and a woman’s right to chose for me is all that matters.
    I am not ‘against’ a woman’s right for her religion to guide her in her personal decisions. I am not taking away anyone’s choices. If a Christian woman is raped, and it is against her religion to terminate her pregnancy, I am not against it. If a Christian woman is in a life threatening situation, has a family with other children, and has to choose between terminating her pregnancy and dying, I am not against her decision.
    However, that Christian woman, or Christian legislator, preacher, religious institution or otherwise does not have the right to deny me and any other woman the right to make decisions based on my/her own situation.
    Oh…and I am Chinese. There are billions of us. No one will be killing us off anytime soon.

  • Freddy Neat Shee

    You keep using the word “CONTEXT”. I do not think that word means what you think it does. First, it’s not an acronym, so there’s no need to put it in all caps. Secondly, the if you didn’t understand my question because it used a word in a way that you were unfamiliar with, you could have asked for clarification.

    I’m also confused as to the definition of “anti abortion”, as you stated above. Since you spent the last 3 days making sure everyone knows that “abortion”, in your mind, is really just a spontaneous process that happens all the time and nobody has any control over it, and therefore it is neither morally right nor wrong, how could I be “anti abortion”? I never said I was against [a spontaneous process that happens all the time and nobody has any control over it].

    By the way, when you refuse to allow people to speak in plain language, you wind up with messages that look like the one above. I am not angry with you. I find it humorous and amusing that you get so terribly worked up over someone’s use of a word that is, apparently, very precious to you. Anger would be evident in use of ALL CAPS in my messages. For an example, have a look at some of your own messages. Desperation would appear by someone insisting on the other person in an argument using “definition X” for a word, while simultaneously arguing against it. Desperation is also evident by someone attempting desperately not to answer a simple question, and willfully getting hung up on a random word in the question. You can see a lot of that in your own posts as well. This usually happens when arguing against someone who significantly outclasses you on an intellectual basis, but I don’t have to tell you that — you’re probably very familiar with that feeling already 🙂

Powered by Loon Watchers