We are Against Hate, Not Faith

The British Government has Betrayed Its People


Two champions for freedom: Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

It is now official. Yesterday the UK government and the Home Office officially took one giant step closer to dhimmitude and shamed the UK’s glorious democratic tradition by banning Robert Spencer, from Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs from entering the UK to pay their respects to the memory of Drummer Rigby in Woolwich, London, and to address a meeting there.

It is well known that the UK governments of all political stripes are intensely fearful of the EDL in the UK, doubtless because EDL’s reaction to successive governments’ appeasement of Islamism.  The EDL’s association with the planned meeting, therefore, may well have influenced the Home Office’s decision.  Be that as it may, we should not ignore the fact that UK Islamists and their useful idiots are manipulating and cheering on the government from the sidelines.  Among these is Hope not Hate, (someone on Twitter is trying to trend them as #hatenothope) the leftist organisation which says that it exists to counter “fascism” and yet carefully ignores the sort of fascism Islam promotes in Muslim countries and exports to the West.  Alongside them on the bandwagon is the egregious Anjem “Motor Mouth” Choudary, hate preacher, attention seeker and UK citizen, who in honour of Spencer’s and Geller’s visit formed “Islamic Emergency Defence” (note the acronym) – a  new Islamist organisation to vent his anger and rage and further inflate his already overblown ego.

What shouts out for recognition is the blatant double standard in play here.  For years successive UK governments have actively supported or turned a convenient blind eye to the entry into the country of various Islamist preachers of hate – notably Yusuf al-Qaradawi, infamous for his promotion of female genital mutilation as well as suicide terror against Israeli civilians – and most recently one from Saudi Arabia who advocates wife-beating, violent jihad in Syria, and (even more sickeningly) has actually said that daughters should not seek to seduce their fathers by wearing revealing clothes at home.

Because of these, a growing climate of resentment, bordering on anger, reigns in the UK.  More and more citizens are openly opposing their government’s over-readiness to appease exaggerated Muslim entitlement, and the outrage following the grooming of young white underage girls by Muslim males was made even worse by the media’s and governments’ failure to acknowledge openly that this is a problem within Muslim rather than “Asian” communities.

When Drummer Rigby was beheaded by Islamists in broad daylight outside Woolwich barracks, many in the UK thought that at last the government would act against the growing threat to them from Islamic supremacism.  Instead, two knowledgeable people from the US, who have never preached hatred in the way that Anjem Choudary has been allowed to do, were banned from entry.   It may be useful to reproduce here the Home Secretary’s main “reasoning”.  The following is taken from Jihad Watch and Spencer and Geller are banned under the

“Unacceptable Behaviour policy, which covers any means or medium, including:


  • Writing, producing, publishing or distributing material,
  • Public speaking, including preaching
  • Running a website… to express views that:
  •  foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
  • seek to provoke others to terrorist acts,
  • foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts,
  • foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK”

We are then told that “the list is indicative and not exhaustive” (a prime example of the sort of Humpty Dumpty-land doublespeak which characterises authoritarianism) and that Spencer and Geller’s presence in the UK is “not conducive to the public good!”

We then leap from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous when we reach the rationale for the Home Secretary’s decision.  She accuses Spencer and Geller of making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK!

Have Spencer and Geller have promoted apparently unlimited immigration into the UK from Muslim countries?

Have they have “lost” hundreds (if not thousands – we cannot tell because the government does not know and if it did it would probably not inform us) of known and suspected jihadis who entered the UK illegally?

Have Spencer and Geller created no-go areas for non-Muslims in areas of the UK?

Have they been responsible for allowing an Islamist-linked mayor, whose practices are at least questionable, to remain in power in Tower Hamlets, London?

No. They have done none of these things, but they have highlighted all these and other problems and posited reasons as to why they occur.  Successive UK governments, having imposed them on their people, are too craven to confront them.

Let us be clear: Spencer and Geller may SAY many things of which the Home Secretary does not approve but nowhere do they BEHAVE violently or preach or encourage violence.  Articles on Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs cite sources which support what they argue.

On the other hand, the UK-born Muslim men who groomed and then sold underage white girls for sex BEHAVED abominably and ruined those girls’ lives.  It took the UK authorities years to arrest them and among the reasons for the delays, apart from the understandable fear and reticence of their victims to give evidence against them, was the authorities’ reluctance to being thought to be “racist!”  Many more cases are still under investigation and most of the UK media seem to find it difficult to describe the specific origins of these men, preferring rather to insult all Asians.

It seems to have escaped the Home Secretary that every single item in the list above can be applied to Anjem Choudary, to hate preaching imams in mosques in the UK, to home-grown Muslim fanatics playing to the gallery at Islamic conferences, and other Islamists they have allowed into the UK.  Choudary is allowed to tweet messages which invite people to Islam in order to save themselves from hell fire; he is allowed to preach that Muslims in the UK should claim social security as their jeziyah right.  He appears to be immune from prosecution.  Worse, throughout all this madness, mosques in the UK continue to radicalise young people, and Islamists are invited into UK universities to turn students’ heads towards violence.  More and more money from Saudi and other Islamist countries is poured into our universities, but UK governments do not inform UK citizens of the strings which are inevitably attached to it. In their readiness to bend themselves out of shape to accommodate Muslim demands and threats, UK governments have begun to curtail their people’s freedoms and to stifle their protests against this Islamic encroachment.

Rabbi Shalom Lewis, in his excellent Rosh Hashanna sermon in 2010, voiced what must be the feelings and reactions of many in the UK about this government’s wilful ignorance and dereliction of duty in the face of the threat from Islam:

“.. Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable. ….

” Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling. Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading.

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death. “

“Appeasement is death” and it seems that the animal who butchered Drummer Rigby was almost right when he said that the UK government cannot protect its people.  Worse, given the decision to ban Spencer and Geller, it seems not to want to do so.

20 Responses to The British Government has Betrayed Its People

  1. Jon MC says:

    Actually, I wrote on the matter here: http://www.faithfreedom.org/?p=2441
    drawing on some of the same sources that David Bukay has done, but I wrote in far less detail.
    (I’ve also added a link to Bukay’s article from mine.)

    I don’t think that TR’s actions are necessarily “wilfully misconstrued” by the Police.
    The Police are interested in “keeping the Queen’s peace” and if TR’s presence in this or that area will cause a breach of the peace – even if said breach is by Muslims – then it is easier and simpler to arrest TR rather than deal with rioting Muslims.
    From this perspective, the Police actions make sense (rather as they did for the picnic).
    Whether or not it is the RIGHT reaction is debatable, but the sort of heavy Policing required to prevent a riot is outrageously costly and can’t be laid on “at the drop of a hat” (recall the initial problems the Police had in dealing with the London riots of 2010, they simply did not have the manpower to stop it in the first day or two).
    Thus I understand the Police reaction (and I suspect TR does to – he’s not an idiot, despite what some might think).
    Of course, what this does point up is the degree to which (some) Muslims in the UK feel empowered to threaten violence and this is so because of state pandering to their sensitivities.

  2. Izzy says:

    This is rather like sinking into a parallel universe of “hot ice and wond’rous strange snow!”

    I think that Babs has often argued for naming things exactly for what they are and I agree, but in this we see the double bind which accompanies this action of Robinson’s – he is damned if he does what he thinks is right and does it peaceably, because regardless of that it will be wilfully misconstrued by the police – and damned if he does nothing.

    Well I’m all for upsetting Muslims by exercising my right to freedom of movement and speech. They are in sore need of being upset by our merely calling them out for what they are, and by extension whatever government supports this woeful state of affairs and colludes with it deserves to be booted out of power and/or equally upset as the Muslims who manipulate them.

    I received the following link about Al’wala wal-Bara http://www.meforum.org/3545/islam-hatred-non-muslim

    What are your thoughts about it?

  3. Jon MC says:

    the thread is getting too narrow, so I’m moving my reply…
    I’m not Tommy R.’s most ardent fan, but if this sky news report( http://news.sky.com/story/1109545/edl-leader-tommy-robinson-released-on-bail ) is correct, then Robinson and Carroll’s only crime was to want to walk the streets of London freely.
    On approaching Tower Hamlets – the place famous for posters proclaiming “You are now entering a Sharia controlled zone”, the Police stopped him entering this “Muslim area”.
    Again, the report says that Robinson’s only “bad-mouthing” was to shout at the Police “You’re enforcing Sharia law” – perhaps not kind, but since the Police were saying, in effect, “You can’t go in there, you might upset the Muslims” that’s exactly what they were doing.
    At this point, when Robinson and Carroll were trying to estalish whether or not “You may be arrested” meant “you will be arrested” or not, “another man approached the pair and assaulted Mr Carroll.” (Sky report).
    Thereupon the Police arrested … Robinson and Carroll!
    (This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. See: http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/04/tommy-robinson-arrested-after-street-jihad/ )
    Now, the argument has been made that the Police had used various orders to prevent R&C walking through Tower Hamlets and as such, in attempting to do so, R&C were “breaking the law”. This is true.
    But the question is WHY were they banned?
    I’m pretty certain R&C did not intend to breach the peace etc., but I’m equally certain they were making a point – that certain “Muslim areas” are thus “off-limits” to people who are “provocative” to Muslims. And so again we are back to the “you can’t do that, you’ll upset the Muslims and they’ll get violent” attitude of those who also strenuously insist that Islam is the religion of peace.
    The UK is a strange place at present.

  4. Izzy says:

    Jon MC I think I remember reading about that.

    UK police are on a loser anyway, since their numbers have been decimated by cutbacks. They are also, as the recent Muslim grooming scandals have shown, paralysed by the current twisted interpretation of multiculturalism.

    And the police also provide protection for Islamolunatics to curse infidels.

    Tommy Robinson’s latest bruhaha has hardly endeared him to more sensible people. Why on earth could he not have persisted in his protest like a grown up, instead of rising to the bait and then bad-mouthing the police?

  5. Jon MC says:

    Let me tell you a true story, it’s from a few years ago in my home town.
    A “mega-mosque” was proposed for a site in a new (v.large) housing development (the development was not for or by Muslims, it’s a mixed community).
    Local people objected, and as part of the objection intended to stage a community family “bring and share” picnic on the green sward of the site to protest, complete with bouncy castle for the littlies (and those who never escaped childhood).
    The Police banned this picnic under “public order” legislation. Why?
    Did they fear rioting five-year olds if the ice-cream melted? NO.
    Did they fear breaches of the peace over soggy cucumber sandwiches? NO.
    The breakdown of public order as a result of weak tea? NO.
    It was banned because of threats that Muslims from Northern cities were intending to come down by the bus-load and attack the pinicking families. And the Police could (or would) not ensure the picnickers safety.
    Thus entirely peaceful and very British protests can be banned if they will attract the “swivel eyed islamists” because the Police couldn’t (wouldn’t) protect law abiding citizens from them.
    To be fair, the UK Police do an extrodinarily good job under very difficult conditions, but the cost of Policing such a peaceful event in the face of threats of mass-violence from Muslims might well have been prohibitive, but it is still a salutory story.
    Coming up to date:
    Given that the EDL marches and the Police do provide protection, perhaps things have moved on;
    and there is a happy outcome: the site is now a Tescos.

  6. Assta B. Gettu says:

    I am really curious: Did Obama go to Africa to promote homosexuality or economic prosperity?

  7. Babs Barron says:

    I have just been watching the news on al-BBC television, in which we were treated to excerpts from sermons, against the grooming of white children, given in English by imams in various mosques in the UK.

    I am thinking, too little, too late.

    I am also thinking, were they given in English in every mosque in the UK?

    I am also thinking of what Jon MC wrote elsewhere here about sitr

  8. Izzy says:

    Jon MC what cockeyed, crazy logic on the part of the UK government. This also explains why swivel-eyed Islamists who line up to curse homecoming UK soldiers are surrounded by police, whereas anyone who hurls abuse back at them (and heaven knows they deserve it) is moved on by said police or arrested.

    We live, as Melanie Phillips has written, in a world turned upside down.

  9. Jon MC says:

    On one level Izzy, you are quite correct.
    The usual politically correct pandering to Muslim sensibilities can be viewed as discrimination, since such attitudes do indeed imply (if not rest on the assumption) that Muslims will act like children not adults.
    It goes without saying (but I’ll say it even so) that those who adopt this attitude would view themselves as anything-but-discriminatory since they are being so marvellously multi-cultural in taking account of Muslim cultural sensitivities etc. – and surely such sensitivity to the culture and attitudes of others proves they aren’t evil Islamophobes, bigots, racists etc.
    Muslims encourage this, since it means that they are treated advantageously and given considerations that are not extended to the rest of society.

    On the other hand, there is also plenty of evidence from deadly riots etc. to support the view that Muslims really are a bunch of petulant, bullying children when faced with criticism.
    As such you can make a public order case (for example) that pandering to them preserves public order (don’t permit criticism of Islam and Muslims won’t riot).
    It’s cowardly and it breaches the idea that Law should apply equally (or as UK law has it “indifferently”) to all, but “keeping the peace” trumps the rule of law it seems.

  10. Babs Barron says:

    Should’ve written “..there is a lot in the UK of which to be proud still..”

    Apologies for what might have been a Freudian slip :~))

  11. Babs Barron says:

    Assta B Gettu, read Jon MC’s post below. It makes eminent sense that the jelly-spined UK government (don’t blame me – I didn’t vote for them) DARE not front up to the Islamists here. For decades they have encouraged immigration from Muslim countries, trousered the cash inducements from Saudi and elsewhere, knowing full well that there was no such thing as a free lunch, and that Islam was to be privileged by way of repayment.

    I have written elsewhere here (see http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/free-thought/how-islam-fascinates-the-west/comment-page-1/) about the fascination of the West by Islam. We see the results of it being played out here now.

    The role of this blog and many others like it is to do its best to impact on such people and try to break the trance. I am up for it. Is anyone else?

  12. Babs Barron says:

    Assta B Gettu, I am a proud Brit and there is a not in the UK of which to be proud still.

    It seems to me that with Obama in charge and making friends with the Ikhwan, America is in almost as much danger of dhimmification as the UK.

  13. Assta B. Gettu says:

    Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller,

    Stay home! Don’t worry about going to the occupied city of London by the Pakistani terrorists. When the British people are in real danger (right now they don’t know they are), they will call America to save them from an Islamic rule. They begged America to save them from Nazism and Fascism during World II, and they will do the same thing again; therefore, let us ignore them and let them hundle their own mess by themselves.

  14. Assta B. Gettu says:

    London is not anymore the London of William the Conqueror, the Churchill of “We Shall Fight on the Beaches,” and the London of many other previous British heroes. London is now the city of the cowards John Major, Tony Blair, and David Cameron. History will never forget the bad and the good British leaders. Tony Blair and David Cameron, who glorify and protect the welfares of the British Jihadist Muslims, are the worst leaders England has never seen before. Under the leaderships of these two Prime Ministers, British Jihadists, such as the clown Anjem Choudary and others, have expanded their terrorist networks throughout the British shires. Had the diffident Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary, allowed the highly educated Spencer and Geller to England, she could easily unravel the pugnacity of Islam and save the virgin girls of England from being raped every single day by the British Islamist terrorists and rapists. She is not good for the mothers and fathers of the British victim girls; therefore, she must be fired from her job immediately.

    Mr. David Cameron, allow the revered Spencer and Geller to come to London to educate the young Londoners about the deceptions of Islam and its hostilities toward a democratic country like yours. Don’t be on the side of the evils – the Jihadist Muslims! And one of these Jihadist Muslims is Anjem Choudary, the mouthpiece of the British Islamist terrorists. Anjem Choudary should be deported or should be thrown in the pokey for life. Please, stop your placatory views about the ruthless Jihadist killers in the streets, alleys, abandoned houses, and ghettos of London.

    Thank you for listening!

  15. Izzy says:

    Could this be another example of the routine discrimination against Muslims in the UK by officialdom which does not trust it to meet criticism in a mature fashion?

    Of course the UK government is correct not to trust Islam – it has even less self-control than a thwarted three year old – but what intelligent parent gives a three year old in a tantrum what it wants in order to stop it from wrecking its room?

    Thanks to the wilful blindness and cowardice of successive UK governments the people of Britain have had inflicted on them a self-entitled culture which wants their downfall. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is the epitome of the man who feeds his friend to a crocodile hoping that it will eat him last – the worst of creatures, an appeaser of violence.

  16. Babs Barron says:

    Of course you are correct Jon MC, in that even within fevered reasoning there are elements of logic.

    It’s interesting that Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary seems to have suspected her Twitter account, probably because of the volume of complaints.

  17. Babs Barron says:

    mexicanstandoff, of course we are well aware, aren’t we, of what constitutes “defence” in the Islamist mind – as the Israel/Palestine situation shows they are very skilled at getting their retaliation in first along the lines of “Darabani, wa baka; Sabaqani, wa’shtaka “ He struck me, and started crying; then he went ahead of me and charged me with beating him!” And western governments fall for it again and again

  18. Jon MC says:

    I for one understand the reasoning of the U.K. government. I think it goes something like this:

    In the first place we must never forget three things (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron):
    1. Islam is THE religion of peace (TM) as the UK gov’t, religious leaders etc. are always telling us.
    2. “Islamic terror” is nothing to do with Islam. This is so because it is a secular maxim that religion is NEVER the root cause of anything – and ANYONE’s claims to the contrary are baseless. The REAL causes of Islamic terror are non-quantifiables, thus non-disprovables, such as “marginalisation”, “disenfranchisement” etc.
    3. In addition everyone knows that Muslims are ALWAYS the “real victims” of any attack perpetrated by Muslims, if only due to the (hypothetical) “backlash” that results.
    Therefore, from the above, we can axiomatically discount the speeches of the likes of Choudhary, Qaradawi, etc. as having any bearing on the actions of “Islamic terrorists” (which is, axiomatically, a misnomer) and thus they are free to come and preach as they choose.
    On the other hand people such as Spencer and Geller UPSET Muslims.
    As we know, UPSETTING Muslims leads to explosions of hatred: e.g. Salman Rushdie and the “Satanic verses”, which caused deadly riots.
    Therefore UPSETTING Muslims ‘foster[s] hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK’ and thus ‘Spencer and Geller’s presence in the UK is “not conducive to the public good!” ‘.
    As far as I can tell, the UK gov’ts logic is faultless!!

    You will note that the “Unacceptable Behaviour policy, which covers any means or medium, including… foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK” makes no mention of of the SOURCE of the hatred. Let me elucidate:
    It does not matter whether the “hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK” is towards or by Spencer and Geller’s “targets”. In other words, in the eyes of this law, it makes no difference if Spencer and Geller’s words “foster hatred” TOWARDS the Muslim community or BY the Muslim community. All that matters is that someone, somewhere, might “foster hatred” as a result of their speaking.

    However, this does not absolve the UK gov’t of abominable cowardice.

  19. mexicanstandoff says:

    Excellent article, Babs. I’ve just signed the petition.

    I am appalled at the cowardice of the Home Secretary, and I know I’m not the only one. Her argument is so full of holes you could drive a double decker bus through it.

    Anjem Choudary has formed a “Muslim Defence” group to “defend” Muslims in the UK – and has told them they mustn’t turn the other cheek. It’s called the IED – a despicable identification with the improvised devices that have murdered and maimed British soldiers in Afghanistan.

    Theresa May, the Home Secretary chooses to forget that this too is incitement to racial hatred and a threat to community cohesion.

    Thank you also for reminding us of the courageous Rabbi Shalom Lewis. We must not give up.

  20. Babs Barron says:

    Please sign the petition addressed to the UK government to allow Spencer and Geller to enter the UK at


Leave a reply


Win $50,000 if you can refute Ali Sina's Claim


A Priceless Comic Book!

Read it for Free